United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Engineering and Analysis
Division WH-552
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 440/1-91/OC9a
November 1991
>EPA
Water
Supplement to the OCPSF Development Document
for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and
New Source Performance Standards
for the
Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Point Source Category
-------
EPA 440/l-91/009a
SUPPLEMENT TO THE OCPSF DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR THE
ORGANIC CHEMICALS,
PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
November 1991
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of this "Supplement to the OCPSF Development
Document" was directed by Elwood H. Forsht and George M. Jett,
Project Officers, Engineering and Analysis Division. Mr. Brian
Grant, Office of General Counsel, provided major contributions to
the accuracy, organization, and legal rationale of the preamble,
proposed amendments, and this report. Technical support was
provided under EPA Contract Nos. 68-033509 and 68-C1-0006.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
PAGE
1-1
I. INTRODUCTION
1-1
A. SUMMARY
1-2
B. LEGAL AUTHORITY
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently ^
Available (BPT) •
2. Best Available Technology Economically ^
Achievable (BAT)
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology ^
(BCT)
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) x'4
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) 1-4
6. Pretreatment Standards for Now Sources (PSNS) .... 1-5
C. HISTORY OF THE OCPSF RULEMAKING EFFORTS ^
AND LITIGATION '
1. Summary through the 1987 Promulgation I'5
2. Summary of the Litigation •
3 Partial Settlement Agreements, Other Negotiations,
and Review of the OCPSF Regulation
D. ORGANIZATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT .. 1-9
II-l
II. BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME
II-l
A. INTRODUCTION
II-*
B. BACKGROUND
C. BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION IS"'~ RESOLUTION "'5
1. Assessment of "Raw .:e" Treatability «-5
11-10
2. BAT Subpart J Appl. -ity
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3. Adverse Effects of Creating a BOD5 Floor . . . ..
4. Conclusion
|
III. BAT SUBPART J LIMITATIONS AND PSES STANDARDS
A. BACKGROUND
B. REVISIONS TO METHODOLOGY
1. New Baseline Costs .
2. Revised In-Plant Biological Treatment Costs
3. Land Availability
4. Proposed Regulatory Amendments
IV. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES ;
A. INTRODUCTION
B. BACKGROUND .
C. FACTORS AFFECTING COMPLETE
RECYCLE OF PROCESS WASTEWATER
D. ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF RECYCLE TECHNIQUES BY OCPSF
FACILITIES L
I
I
1. Identification of Complete Recycle Plants and
Product/Processes ,
2. Identification of Partial Recycle Plants and
Product/Processes
PAGE
11-21
11-27
III-l
III-l
III-2
III-3
III-8
111-30
111-33
IV-1
IV-1
IV-2
IV-5
IV-8
IV-8
IV-9
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
3. Analysis of Extent of Raw Material and Product
Recovery at Complete and Partial Recycle Plants
and Product/Processes
E. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE PRODUCTS FOR RECYCLE BASED
ZERO DISCHARGE STANDARDS
F. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
IV-11
IV-19
IV-23
APPENDIX III-A
APPENDIX III-B
APPENDICES
REVISED IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
Vs 1987 PROMULGATED IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL
COST ESTIMATES
REVISED BAT AND PSES COST COMPLIANCE
ESTIMATES AND TECHNOLOGY BASIS
III-A1
III-B1
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
II-l
Page
Comparison of Maximum Monthly Average BAT Limitations
for the 63 Subpart I and 59 Subpart J Regulated Pollutants .. II-2
I
II-2 Annual Average BOD5 Influent and Effluent Data ; II-7
II-3 Twenty-three Direct Discharge BAT Subpart J Plants ..L 11-12
II-4 Cost Comparisons for Alternatives to Biological Treatment 11-13
I
II-5 List of 30 Pollutants with their Subpart I Limitations
more Stringent than their Subpart J Counterparts 11-16
II-6 Long-Term Averages (LTA) and Maximum Monthly Variability
Factors (VF) for Four Pollutants with Subpart J Limits
Greater Than Subpart I 11-17
II-7 Additional Annual Loadings Discharged by BAT Subpart J
Plants Beyond BAT Subpart I Limitations for 23 Plants 11-18
II-8 Additional Annual Loadings Discharged at Current Levels
from the Four Pollutants Unregulated by BAT Subpart J
Limitations for 23 Plants 11-20
i -
II-9 Additional Annual Loadings Discharged by BAT Subpart J
Plants Beyond BAT Subpart I Limitations for 84 Plants 11-22
11-10 Additional Annual Loadings Discharged at Current Levels
from the Four Pollutants Unregulated by BAT Subpart J
Limitations for 84 Plants : 11-24
I
III-l Compliance Cost Estimates for Steam Stripping Upgrade;; III-4
III-2 Compliance Cost Estimates for Chemical Precipitation
Upgrades III-5
III-3 Revised Plant-by-Plant Cost Estimates for Plants with
Steam Stripping and Chemical Precipitation Upgrades ......... Ill-7
III-4 Technology Corrections ,1 Ill-9
III-5 Revised Cost Estimates Based on Technology Corrections 111-10
I
III-6 Flow Corrections and Revised Cost Estimates Based on Flow
Corrections „ ,i III-ll
III-7 Detention Time Versus Average Influent Phenol Concentration
Analysis !.. 111-12
III-8 Detention Time Analysis for the 18 Remanded Pollutants; .111-14.
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Pag
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
I Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems • Detention Time: 84 hours Ill-18
II Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 130 hours Ill-19
I '
III Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 413 hours 111-20
IV Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 84 hours ...... 111-21
V Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant I
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 130 hours 111-22
i
VI Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - DetentionTime: 413 hours Ill-23
VII Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 84 hours Ill-24
VIII Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 130 hours 111-25
IX Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 413 hours 111-26
X Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 84 hours Ill-27
XI Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 130 hours Ill-28
1
.
XII Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time: 413 hours Ill-29
vii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. SUMHARY
This document describes the supporting information for the Agency's
proposed responses to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' remand decision
related to the Organic Chemicals Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) regulation
(40 CFR Part 414) , rh»n.
-------
EPA proposed the same NSPS and PSNS that were promulgated on November 5,
1987 because, among other things, EPA's database does not demonsl:rate that total
recycle is a demonstrated technology.
B. LEGAL AUTHORITY
This regulation was promulgated under the authority of Sections 301, 304,
306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. , as amended) also referred
to as "the Act" or "CWA". It was also promulgated in responses to the Settlement
Agreement in Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. Train.|8 KRC 2120 (D.D.C.
1976), modified. 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979), modified by Orderii dmted October 26,
1982; August 2, 1983; January 6, 1984; July 5, 1984; January 7, 1985; April 24,
1986; and January 8, 1987.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (Section 101(a)),; To implement the
Act, EPA was required to issue effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and NSPS for industrial dischargers.
I
In addition to these regulations for designated industrial categories, EPA
was required to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards
applicable to all discharges of toxic pollutants. The Act included a time-table
for issuing these standards. However, EPA was unable to meet many of the
deadlines and, as a result, in 1976, it was sued by several environmental groups.
In settling this lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement
Agreement" that was approved by the Court. This agreement required EPA to
develop a program and adhere to a schedule for controlling 65 "priority" toxic
pollutants and classes of pollutants. In carrying out this program, EPA was
required to promulgate BAT effluent- limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and NSPS for a variety of major industries, including the OCFSF
industry.
i - .
Many of the basic elements of the Settlement Agreement were incorporated
into the Clean Water Act of 1977. Like the Agreement, the Act stressed control
1-2
-------
of toxic pollutants, including the 65 priority toxic pollutants and classes of
pollutants.
Under the Act, the EPA is required to establish several different kinds of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. These are summarized briefly
below.
1, Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available CBPT^P
BPT effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the average of
the best existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages, and unit
processes within the category or subcategory for control of familiar (e.g.,
conventional) pollutants, such as BOD5, TSS, and pH.
In establishing BPT effluent limitations guidelines, EPA considers the
total cost in relation to the effluent reduction benefits, age of equipment and
facilities involved, processes employed, process change required, engineering
aspects of the control technologies, and non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements). The Agency balances the category-wide or
subcategory-wide cost of applying the technology against the effluent reduction
benefits.
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT1
BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in general, represent the best
existing performance in the category or subcategory. The Act establishes BAT as
the principal national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters.
In establishing BAT, the Agency considers the age of equipment and
facilities involved, processes employed, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, process changes, cost of achieving such effluent reduction, and
non-water quality environmental impacts.
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 301(b)(2)(E),
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT) for the
discharge of conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources.
1-3
-------
Section 304(a)(4) designated the following as conventional pollutants: BOD5,
TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease a
conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors specified in Section
304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that the BCT effluent limitations guidelines be
assessed in light of a two part "cost-reasonableness" tej;t fAmerican Paper
Institute v. EPA. 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981)]. The first test compares the
cost for private industry to reduce its discharge of conventional pollutants with
the costs to POTWs for similar levels of reduction in their disicharge of these
pollutants. The second test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find that limitations lire "reasonable"
under both tests before establishing them as BCT. In no case may BCT be less
stringent than BPT. >
i
EPA has promulgated a methodology for establishing BCT effluent limitations
guidelines (51 FR 24974, July 8, 1986).
4.
Nev Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
NSPS are based on the performance of the best available demonstrated
technology. New plants have the opportunity to install the best and most
efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a
result, NSPS should represent the most stringent numerical values attainable
through the application of best available demonstrated control technology for all
pollutants (i.e., toxic, conventional, and nonconventional).
5.
Pretreatment Standards for ExistinffSpurces CPSES)
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants th«it pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. The
Clean Water At requires pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through
POTWs or interfere with either the POTW's treatment process! or chosen sludge
disposal method. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be technology-based and anaJlogous to the BAT
effluent limitations guidelines for removal of toxic pollutants. For the purpose
• '• . ' • 1-4 - - ' • ;
-------
of determining whether to promulgate national category-wide PSES and PSNS, EPA
generally determines that there is pass through of pollutants, and thus a need
for categorical standards if the nationwide average percentage of pollutants
removed by well-operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment is less than the
percent removed by the BAT model treatment system. The General Pretreatment
Regulations, which serve as the framework for categorical pretreatment standards,
are found at 40 CFR Part 403. (Those regulations contain a definition of pass
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass through
and does not use the percent removal comparison test described above (52 FR 1586,
January 14, 1987).)
6.
Pr«fcreatmept Standards for New Ssnrcei
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation
of a POTW. PSNS are to be issued at- the same time as NSPS. New indirect
dischargers , like new direct dischargers , have the opportunity to incorporate in
their plant the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers
the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
C. HISTORY OF THE OCPSF RULEMAKING EFFORTS AND LITIGATION
1. Summary through the 1987
EPA originally promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the organic chemicals manufacturing industry in two phases. Phase I,
covering 40 product/processes (a product that is manufactured by the use of a
particular process •- some products may be produced by any of several processes) ,
was promulgated on April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14676). Phase II, covering 27
additional product/processes, was promulgated on January 5, 1976 (41 FR 902).
The Agency also promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
plastics and synthetic fibers industry' in two phases. Phase I, covering 13
product/processes, was promulgated on April 5, 1974 (39 FR 12502). Phase II,
covering eight additional product/processes, was promulgated on January 23, 1975
(40 FR 3716).
These regulations were challenged, and on February 10, 1976, the Court in
Union Carbide v. Hsin, 541 F.2d 1171 (4th Cir. 1976), remanded the Phase I
1-5
-------
organic chemicals regulation. EPA also withdrew the Phase II organic chemicals
regulation on April 1, 1976 (41 FR 13936). However, pursuant to an agreement
with the industry petitioners, the regulations for butadiene Manufacture were
left in place. The Court also remanded the Phase I plastics and synthetic fibers
regulations in FMC Corp. v. Train. 539 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976) *nd in response
EPA withdrew both the Phase I and II plastics and synthetic fibers regulations
on August 4, 1976 (41 FR 32587) except for the pH limitations, which had not been
addressed in the lawsuit. Consequently, only the regulations covering butadiene
manufacture for the organic chemicals industry and the pH regulations for the
plastics and synthetic fibers industry have been in effect t:o date. These
regulations were superseded by the regulations described in this report.
i
In the absence of promulgated, effective effluent limitations guidelines
and standards, OCFSF direct dischargers have been issued National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NFDES) permits on a case-by-cai:e basis using best
professional judgement (BPJ), as provided in Section 402(a)(jl) of the CWA.
Subsequent to the withdrawal/suspension of the national regulations cited
above, studies and data-gathering were initiated in order to provide a basis for
issuing effluent limitations guidelines-and standards for this industry. These
efforts provided a basis for the March 21, 1983 proposal (48 1FR 11828); the July
17, 1985 (50 FR 29071), October 11, 1985 (50 FR 41528), and December 8, 1986 (51
FR 44082) post-proposal notices of availability of information; and the final
regulation.
On November 5, 1987, EPA promulgated, a regulation establishing effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the OCFSF point source category based
on the best practicable control technology currently available ("BPT"), the best
available technology economically achievable ("BAT"), new source performance
standards ("NSPS") for direct dischargers, and pretreatment standards for
existing and new source indirect dischargers ("PSES" and "PSNS", respectively)
(52 FR 42522; 40 CFR Part 414, Subparts A through J). Limitations based on best
conventional pollutant control technology were reserved. The concentration based
regulation initially controlled the discharge of 63 toxic and 3 conventional
pollutants. The limitations generally apply at the end-of-pipe. However, for
listed (Appendix A to Part 414) and designated metal- and cyanide-bearing
wastestreams, the limitations apply in-plant at the process source of the metals
1-6 --, ;
-------
and cyanide. The technology bases for these limitations and standards include
steam stripping, chemical precipitation, chemical oxidation, activated carbon,
biological treatment, and chemically assisted clarification.
2.
Sunmarv of the Litieation
Twenty-eight industry petitioners, comprised of trade associations and
individual companies, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged
this regulation in several circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The cases were
consolidated and assigned to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The petitioners
raised approximately 63 separate issues'.
On March 30, 1989, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision that upheld the
regulations against all industry challenges and all but two challenges brought
by NRDC. With respect to the two challenges brought by NRDC, the Court remanded
two aspects of the regulation to EPA for further consideration, but left these
aspects of the rule in effect pending further rulemaking. These remands require
the Administrator to provide an opportunity to comment on the BAT
subcategorization scheme established in the guideline and to consider
promulgating zero discharge new source performance standards based on recycling
,of wastewater (Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Environmental Protection
Agency. 870 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1989).
Six petitioners or groups of petitioners filed petitions for rehearing on
about 16 issues. On October 10, 1989, the Court granted rehearing in part and
remanded two parts of the regulations to EPA for further rulemaking proceedings
(885 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1989)). The first and more significant part consists of
the effluent limitations for 19 of the 20 pollutants in BAT Subpart J (40 CFR
414.101) that were remanded based upon an error in EPA's costing of the model in-
plant biological treatment technology. (The court left in effect the limitation
for acrylonitrile that was based upon this technology.) This aspect of the
remand in effect also remands the new source performance standards for these 19
pollutants for discharges that are subject to 40 CFR 414.101 limitations. In
addition, it remands the PSES and PSNS standards for 13 pollutants that were
based upon the remanded BAT Subpart J limitations. The second remanded part of
the regulation consists of limitations and standards for pollutants discharged
from three metal-bearing waste streams that EPA had erroneously listed in Part
1-7
-------
414 Appendix A (Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Environmental
Aeencv. 885 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Following the Fifth Circuit's decision on rehearing, one petitioner filed
a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 24,
1990, the Supreme Court denied the petition.
I
In response to the Fifth Circuit's decision, EPA revokad on June 29, 1990
(55 FR 26691) the remanded limitations and standards and deleted two of the three
metal-bearing waste streams remanded by the Court. The third metal-bearing waste
stream had previously been deleted on June 29, 1989 (54 FR 27351).
I
3. Partial Settlement Agreements. Other Negotiations, and Review of the OCPSF
Regulation
Oh March 29, 1989, petitioners W.R. Grace & Company, Kopper» Company, Inc. ,
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, and the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA) and respondent EPA entered into a Partial Settlement Agreement which
resolved all issues raised by these petitioners with respect to EPA's decision
not to list any complexed-cyanide wastestreams in 40 CFR 414;Appendix B, which
exempts from guideline coverage certain wastestreams containing complexed metals.
EPA agreed to propose specific preamble language and specific amendments to the
OCPSF regulation and solicit comments regarding these proposed .amendments.
I •
During litigation of the OCPSF regulation, petitioners CMA and DuPont and
respondent EPA achieved an understanding with respect to several issues. On June
22, 1988, EPA agreed to propose several regulatory changes which would 1) allow
regulatory authorities to establish limitations and standards for incidental
sources of metals in non-"metal-bearing wastestreams;" 2) modify Appendix A to
delete the listing of five wastestreams that were incorrectly listed as cyanide-
bearing wastestreams and delete three lead-bearing wastestreams that contain
complexed-lead; and 3) publish one technical amendment to the regulation to
include the BFT production-proportioning formula that was 'set: forth in the
October 1987 OCPSF Development Document (page IX-10).
In addition, as the result of many questions by permit writers, control
authorities, and individual companies related to the applicability of the OCPSF
1-8
-------
regulation, Including Category Determination Requests submitted under the
provisions of 40 CFR §403.6(a), EPA carefully reviewed the general applicability
of each subcategory as well as the corresponding product and product group
listings for each subcategory. Based on these reviews, EPA proposed corrections
to the general applicability of three subcategories to reflect the rulemaking
record and analyses, to delete one product and two product groups from coverage
by this regulation, and to move the coverage of two products and one product
group from the Bulk Organic Chemicals Subcategory (§414.70) to the Specialty
Organic Chemicals Subcategory (§414.80).
These proposed amendments were published on October 18, 1990 (55 FR 42332).
After the Agency completes its review of the public comments it will promulgate
final amendments.
D. ORGANIZATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
The following sections describe the technical analyses that provide the
basis for the Agency's response to the Fifth Circuit's remand:
BAT Subcategorization Scheme
BAT Subpart J Limitations and PSES Standards
New Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
1-9
-------
II. BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME
A. INTRODUCTION ' I
On November 5, 1987, the Agency promulgated two technology-based BAT
subcategories for the control of toxic pollutants, one for any direct discharge
point source that uses end-of-pipe biological treatment or installs end-of-pipe
biological treatment to comply with BPT effluent limitations (iSubpart I, §414.90)
and one for any direct discharge point source that does not use end-of-pipe
biological treatment or does not install end-of-pipe biological treatment to
comply with BPT effluent limitations (Subpart J, §414.100). Subparts I and J set
limits for 63 and 59 pollutants, respectively. A comparison of the 59 Subpart
J Maximum for Monthly Average limitations to the corresponding Subpart I
limitations demonstrates that 9 are identical, 20 are more stringent, and 30 are
less stringent than Subpart I. Table II-l presents a comparison of BAT Subpart
I and J Maximum for Monthly Average Limitations.
NRDC challenged the BAT subcategorization scheme arguing that the Agency
had failed to present its BAT subcategorization scheme for comment and also
asserting that this type of BAT subcategorization violated £he CWA because it
allowed a discharger who chooses not to employ end-of-pipe biological treatment
to be subject to fewer and less stringent BAT Subcategory J limitations, rather
than the more stringent Subcategory I limitations- which apply to plants with end-
of-pipe biological treatment systems. NRDC also argued that, if it had had an
opportunity to comment, it would have urged the EPA to establish a raw waste
"floor" level below which biological end-of-pipe treatment is not appropriate or
to limit the applicability of Subpart J to those categories of CICPSF production
that tend to have low raw waste level's (NRDC 6/30/88, Brief p. 54).
i
i
On March 30, 1989, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, without ruling on
NRDC's substantive arguments, remanded the BAT subcategorization of the industry
for notice-and-comment proceedings. However, the Court left th« rule in effect
pending further rulemaking, reasoning that the notice -and-comment proceedings may
disclose that the BOD5 floor urged by NRDC is neither necessary nor feasible, and
that industry petitioners are not prejudiced by being subjected to BAT Subpart
J limitations which, if anything, may be too lenient (870 F.2d at 236).
II-l
-------
TABLE II-1
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM MONTHLY AVERAGE BAT LIMITATIONS FOR THE 63
SUBPART I AND 59 SUBPART J REGULATED POLLUTANTS
POLLUTANT
NUMBER
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
23
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
38
39
42
44
45
52
55
56
"^ *>
57
58
59
60
65
66
68
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
POLLUTANT NAME
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 , 2 -Trichloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3 -Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2 -Trans - dichloroechylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
2 , 4 - D ime thy Ipheno 1
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-NItrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 , 4 - Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3 , 4-Benzof luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
BAT
SUBPART I1
22
96
37
18
15
68
15
68
21
21
22
21
104
21
77
31
15
16
21
153
29
18
32
25
301
40
86
20
22
27
41
72
71
78
15
103
27
81
19
22
23
23
22
22
BAT
SUBPART Jl
19
94
57
142
142
196
196
180
22
196
22
32
110
111
196
142
142
22
25
196
196
19
142
A A
22
196
36
• « f\
110
• • A
142
19
2237
65
162
1207
78
19
95
20
46
19
19
20
20
19
19
II-2
-------
TABLE II-l (Cont'd) ;
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM MONTHLY AVERAGE BAT LIMITATIONS FOR THE 63
SUBPART I AND 59 SUBPART J REGULATED POLLUTANTS!
POLLUTANT
NUMBER
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
88
119
120
121
122
124
128
24
31
35
36
POLLUTANT NAME
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Cyanide
Total Lead
Total Nickel
Total Zinc
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2 , 4 - D ini tro to luene
2 ,6-Dinitrotoluene
BAT
SUBPART I1
22
22
22
22
25
22
26
21
104
1110
1450
420
320
1690
1050
31
39
113
255
BAT
SUBPART J1
19
19
19
19
20
52
28
26
97
1110
1450
420
320
1690
1050
...
1 All units are micrograms per liter.
II-3
-------
EPA proposed unchanged the subcategory approach adopted in the guideline.
Anticipating that NRDC will raise in comment the same substantive objections to
the subcategory scheme it raised in litigation, EPA explains below why it
believes this approach is appropriate, and why NRDC's suggestions are neither
necessary nor feasible.
B. BACKGROUND
The Agency originally proposed in 1983 to establish BAT limits for two
product-based subcategories -- "plastics only" for plants that manufactured
plastics and synthetic fibers only and "not plastics-only" for plants that
manufactured at least some organic chemicals. The proposed technology basis for
the BAT limits was in-plant physical/chemical technology (such as steam
stripping) and end-of-pipe biological treatment for plants that have or need
biological treatment to control biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and in-plant
physical/chemical technology for non-biological treatment plants (52 FR 42532).
After the 1983 proposal, the Agency conducted sampling at 12 additional OCPSF
plants in order to collect additional data that would characterize the
effectiveness of in-plant treatment technologies.
EPA modified its proposed approach in its July 17, 1985 notice of
availability of new information (50 FR 29068). Under the revised approach, the
Agency proposed not to subcategorize the OCPSF category by product mix for BAT.
The Agency noted that since OCPSF plants can economically achieve compliance with
the reproposed BAT limitations for toxic priority pollutants through some
combination of in-plant or end-of-pipe demonstrated technology irrespective of
products produced, BPT and BAT product mix subcategorization are not necessary
bases for establishing BAT limitations. The 1985 notice discussed three
technology options that were under consideration for controlling toxic priority
pollutants at BAT. Each of these BAT options included end-of-pipe biological
treatment for the control of organic pollutants (50 FR 29079; 52 FR 42532).
Several commenters expressed concerns about the proposal not to
subcategorize the industry for BAT purposes and noted that all the technology
options included biological treatment. These commenters questioned whether EPA
had addressed plants which have BOD5 levels too low to allow for effective
biological wastewater treatment. For example, several commenters noted that
chlorosolvent wastestreams are more effectively treated by physical methods. One
II-4
-------
conanenter noted that, for stand-alone chlorosolvent plants, biological treatment
i . •
methods are not used and would be ineffective if used and that the proposed BAT
limits cannot be met by such plants now, nor could they be wet at a reasonable
cost by steam stripper technology alone. (Response to comments of the
Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance #254, #256, and #329 at R. 103473, 103475,
and 103559; see also Response to Comments of Badische #412 at R. 103652-3; Vulcan
#257 and #330 at R. 103476 and 103560; CMA #163 and #404 a,t R. 103369-71 and
103641; Exxon #164 at R. 103372; and Union Carbide #165 at R. 103373.)
I
The Agency agreed that certain OCPSF facilities, such us chlorosolvent
plants, which cannot effectively operate end-of-pipe biological treatment and do
not require end-of-pipe biological treatment to meet the final BPT effluent
limitations, should not have their BAT effluent limitations based on the
performance of in-plant controls and end-of-pipe biological treatment.
Therefore, EPA promulgated the Subpart J BAT effluent limitations based solely
on the performance of in-plant controls such as steam stripping for those OCPSF
facilities which do not require biological treatment to meet BPT effluent
limitations. (1987 Dev. Doc., p. IV-38)' The result was the present scheme under
which plants with end-of-pipe biological treatment must comply with the Subpart
I limitations, whereas plants without end-of-pipe biological treatment must
comply with the Subpart J limitations.
C. BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION ISSUE RESOLUTION |
i
I
1. Assessment of "Raw Waste" Trcatability |
Upon review, EPA has determined that the present subcabegorization of the
OCPSF industry is the correct approach given the technical limitations of
biological treatment and the complexity of the industry. As EPA explained in
both the OCPSF proppsal and the preamble to the final rule, .a biological system
cannot operate effectively without a sufficient mass of organic biodegradable
material to sustain the microorganisms which consume the biodegradable waste (50
FR 29,076; 52 FR 42,548). Comments received from industry during the rulemaking
support EPA's conclusion that plants without a sufficient r,aw waste BOD5 level
cannot sustain biological treatment. (8/17/83 Comments of the Halogenated
Solvent Industry Alliance at 4-5, R. 098922-3; 12/23/8!> Comments of the
Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance at 7-8, R. 071251-2; 12/16/85 Comments of
PPG Industries, Inc. Chemical Group at 3, R. 068765.) i One of the basic
operational requirements for activated sludge biological treatment is the
II-5
-------
maintenance of sufficient dissolved oxygen, substrate (food/organic matter), and
nutrients (generally, nitrogen and phosphorus) in the aeration chamber to
maintain necessary microbial cell growth and energy. "The most important factor
for keeping any living system alive and healthy is the proper amount and type of
food" (Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Manual of Practice No. 11. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 1976, pages 118-25). The Agency therefore agrees
with industry commenters that in the absence of sufficient influent BOD5
concentration (biodegradable food) biological systems will not operate
effectively. Thus, for some dischargers in the industry, end-of-pipe biological
treatment is not part of BAT because it is not an available technology which will
operate under low BOD5 influent conditions.
NRDC has agreed that a plant's ability to maintain biological treatment
"might at least fall within the types of relevant factors that EPA may consider
in creating BAT subcategories" (NRDC Brief at 51). However, NRDC has argued that
EPA's record does not support the inability of plants with low BODS to operate
a biological treatment system and that, even if biological treatment systems are
so limited, EPA should establish a BOD5 floor above which plants may not qualify
for Subpart J, or should limit Subpart J's applicability to plants in specific
segments of the industry which generate wastewater with low BOD5.
EPA has been unable to develop a technical basis for establishing a BOD5
floor above which a biological treatment system can be operated effectively. A
review of the technical literature has not provided a basis for establishing a
floor. EPA has found no discussion in any of the literature of the operation of
biological systems at low BOD5 levels -- rather, the literature typically relates
effluent quality to residence time in biological treatment, and assumes
sufficient substrate to operate the system (1983 Dev. Doc. Vol. II, p. IV-10
describing design models developed by Eckenfelder, McKinney, Lawrence and
McCarty, and Gaudy). Furthermore, the OCPSF database does not provide a basis
to impose a floor.
The Agency has annual average influent BODS data from 45 percent (98) of
the 220 industry plants with end-of-pipe biological treatment. The influent BOD5
concentrations ranged from 60 to 9,420 mg/1; 12 plants reported influent
concentrations less than 125 mg/1. Table II-2 presents a listing of these 98
plants and their average influent and effluent BOD5 data. All of these 98 plants
II-6
-------
TABLE II-2
ANNUAL AVERAGE BOD5 INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA*
OBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
PLANT
602
1698
296
1766
866
908
2026
1656
1911
2390
741
1438
394
177
1609
1133
102
4021
1137
3033
254
83
2365
2573
948
2551
1
250
1647
2592
1572
990
2711
682
1062
1881
1340
2394
2816
443
2461
2631
2528
2445
1977
4051
2313
2227
851
BOD INF
9420
4706
4695
3595
3195
3176
3155
2456
2442
2317
2271
2249
2169
2046
1972
1947
1908
1767
1698
1688
1681
1516
1385
1371
1366
1305
1237
1212
1192
1187
1128
1057
962
911
878
872
839
829
785
718
717
694
679
668
664
645
577
572
565
BOD EFF
1050
68
216
166
10
53
40
97
25
57
96
29
9
126
65
23
7
21
23
190
4
38
40
284
12
11
91
127
58
27
45
16
985
14
24
63
6
57
10
20
43
22
35
48
27
27
244
75
30
OBS
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
, 68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
PLANT
352
2692
154
2430
1717
1643
1617
871
2242
2315
2450
1753
415
1494
970
227
1149
2536
1973
1407
2181
2626
2376
659
883
2678
2222
2556
1695
1343
525
63
387
183
399
2763
802
1714
1059
1769
2471
284
2296
1616
1890
2236
683
2447
2360
BOD INF
524
510
505
496
490
48.3
469
463
45(5
444
440
435
413
413
401
^391'
387
386
, 375
366
351
349
!324
!316
1300
'274 '
253
:210
20(5
183
i!80
!175
17!5
167
163
150
14!)
12!)
120
m
110
104
1 81
! 80
80
80
79
! 71
60
BOD EFF
45
4
11
8
38
18
65
35
16
9
5
37
45
62
10
88
21
3
3
28
4
14
27
35
20
79
8
19
17
8
9
6
14
.
24
4
12
32
32
10
17
21
18
101
47
55
12
15
2
* All BOD5 concentrations are in milligrams/liter
II-7
-------
have end-of-pipe biological treatment in place. In addition, EPA was able to
identify one facility from its 12 plant sampling program (Plant #725) with a two-
week average influent BOD5 of 37 mg/1 prior to biological treatment; however, the
Agency believes that this two-week value may not be representative of the plant's
long-term average BOD5 concentration.
Thus, among the plants for which EPA has influent BODS data, almost 90
percent of those using biological systems have BOD5 levels above 125 mg/1, with
the remaining plants ranging as low as 60 mg/1. However, the Agency is not able
to conclude that, because any particular plant employs biological treatment at
a particular BODS level, other plants could do the same. The effectiveness of
a biological treatment system depends on a number of factors, including
variability and composition of the influent to the system. Relatively minor
changes in process conditions can lead to significant changes in wastewater
composition, which can significantly affect treatability (1983 Dev. Doc. Vol. II,
p. IV-28).
The OCPSF industry is large and diverse, and many plants in the industry
are highly complex. This industry encompasses over 25,000 different organic
chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers product/processes. As a result of the
wide variety and complexity of raw materials and processes used and of products
manufactured, an exceptionally wide variety of pollutants are found in the
wastewaters of this industry. They include conventional pollutants (pH, BOD5,
TSS, and oil and grease), an unusually wide varie-ty of toxic pollutants (both
metals and organic compounds), and a large number of nonconventional pollutants.
Many of the toxic and nonconventional pollutants are organic compounds produced
by the industry for sale. Others are created by the industry as byproducts of
their production operations (52 FR 42525-6).
Certain production factors may affect the concentration of BODS or TSS in
the raw wastewater generated by OCPSF processes. Factors contributing to
relatively higher BOD5 or TSS loading include: use of aqueous reaction media,
use of vacuum jets or steam ejectors, absence of toxic material in the raw
wastewater, and use of oxidation, esterification, or alkoxylation generic
reaction chemistry. Other generic process chemistry may be expected to generate
wastewaters of relatively low BOD5 because refractory chemical species
predominate in the wastewater (i.e., nitration, sulfonation, and halogenation •-
chlorinated solvents), or because relatively few chemical species are present in
II-8
-------
che wastewacer (i.e., bulk and addition polymerization processes). (1983
proposed Dev. Doc. Vol. I, pp. 63 to 68)
In the OCPSF industry, production often varies from (lay to day, or even
from hour to hour. This is particularly true in large, integrated plants
producing a large variety of products as well as plants employing batch
processing. A representative high-volume plant may produce a total of 45 high
volume products with an additional 300 lower volume products,, Smaller batch
processing plants may produce a total of 1,000 different products with 70 to 100
of these being produced on any given operating day (1983 Dev. Doc. Vol. II, p.
III-9). Variations in product mix and relative production volumes generally
produce variations in the treatability of the wastewater r depending on the
biodegradability of the individual constituents (1983 Dev. Doc. Vol. II, pp. IV-7
to 10). Changes in product mix and relative production levels generally affect
the treatability of the combined end-of-pipe wastewater because of subsequent
variations in wastewater flow and characteristics such as individual pollutant
mix, BOD5 concentration, temperature, and pH (1987 Dev. Doc., pp. VII-75 to 9).
One of the principal problems associated with operating a biological system
with varying influents is the effect of such variation on the system's ability
to acclimate to toxic constituents in the wastewater. Although the primary
purpose of biological treatment is usually to reduce the overall oxygen demand
of a wastewater, biological treatment can also remove some specific toxic
compounds from wastewater. Biodegradation converts complex chemicals i-nto
simpler compounds. Sometimes, however, the chemicals produced may be more toxic
than the chemicals degraded (1983 Dev. Doc. Vol. II, p. VII-12). A primary-
limitation of biological treatment of OCPSF process wast«wai:er is the great
variability of toxic pollutant loadings experienced by plants in the industry.
While microbial populations within a .biological treatment system gradually
acclimate to specific compounds in the waste streams from a given organic
chemicals plant, the composition of a waste stream may rapidly change as
different production processes are operated. The microbial,population treating
a complex waste stream of widely varying composition will not be as well
acclimated as a microbial population treating a relatively constant waste stream
(1983 Dev. Doc. Vol. II, p. IV-10). Acclimation can produce strains of organisms
which are tolerant to normally toxic substances. However, once the specialized
strain is established, major changes in wastewater composition or concentration
can kill the acclimated organisms and cause failure of th« treatment process.
II-9
-------
Reestablishment of a suitable microbial population can require months (1983 Dev.
Doc. Vol. II, p. VII-12). As the available substrate in a biological treatment
system decreases, the health of the microorganisms and their ability to adapt to
changing wastewater conditions will likely also decline. Due to the
extraordinary complexity and variety in the OCPSF industry, it would be nearly
impossible to analyze each plant's waste stream to determine a technically
defensible BOD5 floor, or series of floors for different plants with different
operating and wastewater characteristics, especially when the literature does not
provide a theoretical basis for a BOD5 cutoff.
For the same reasons, EPA is also unable to limit the availability of
Subpart J to specific industry segments. EPA's ability to identify segments of
the industry which could qualify for Subpart J rests on its ability to set a
floor. Because the Agency can not determine a technically defensible minimum
BOD5 level which can sustain biological treatment, it is not able to identify
segments of the industry whose wastewater is characterized by BOD5 levels above
such a minimum level.
2. BAT Subpart J Applicability
Even if NRDC's suggestions to limit the availability of Subpart J were
feasible, EPA does not believe that a limitation is necessary. The essence of
NRDC's argument is the concern that companies which have a high enough BOD5 to
operate a biological treatment system will nonetheless choose an alternative
method to comply with BPT in order to qualify for BAT Subpart J. This concern
is unfounded. As EPA explained in its original promulgation, based on reported
or modeled raw waste BOD5 data and the methodology for estimating BPT compliance
costs (1987 Dev. Doc., pp. VIII-2 to 7), EPA projected that 23 plants in the
industry will decide not to employ end-of-pipe biological treatment, all based
on considerations relating to compliance with the BPT limitations.
An assessment of the OCPSF record shows that 220 of the 304 direct
discharging OCPSF facilities reported the use of end-of-pipe biological treatment
in 1980. For the remaining 84 plants without end-of-pipe biological treatment
(identified on pages VII-127 through VII-137 of the 1987 Dev. Doc.), the Agency
estimated that 54 plants would install biological treatment to comply with the
promulgated BPT effluent limitations and an additional 7 plants would comply
11-10
-------
using contract hauling because of low flows (less than 500 gpd)(1987 Dev. Doc.,
pp. VII-127 to 37). The remaining 23 plants, identified in Table II-3, are the
Agency's best estimate of the direct discharging plants to which BAT Subpart J
would apply.
Common sense and economic considerations dictate that plants will not opt
to install biological treatment in order to qualify for th« Subpart J BAT
limitations. As always, EPA encourages plants to carefully consider appropriate
pollution prevention programs including good housekeeping practices, water
conservation, and source reductions as a first step for reducing raw waste BOD5
levels. EPA believes that, after implementation of a comprehensive waste
management program, if a plant has a h'igh enough BOD5 level that it needs to
treat its wastewater in order to comply with the applicable BODS limitations and
can effectively operate an end-of-pipe biological system, the plant will install
an end-of-pipe biological system without regard to the fact that the system will
subject the plant to the Subpart I limitations.
i
The most logical alternative end-of-pipe treatment system, in lieu of
biological treatment, of which EPA is aware for achieving liignificant BOD5
removals would consist of chemically assisted clarification followed by multi-
media filtration and granular activated carbon. The chemically assisted
clarification unit would function as initial solids control with the subsequent
multi-media filtration unit protecting the activated carbon columns-from solids
overload. Table II-4 presents the capital and operation and maintenance costs
associated with the installation of this type of system' at the 54 plants
projected to install end-of-pipe biological treatment to comply with the BPT
limitations. The Agency estimates that these 54 plants would incur annual costs
almost 15 times higher to comply with the BPT limitations if they chose instead
to install an end-of-pipe activated carbon treatment system ($6.123 vs. $90.228
million, respectively). Thus, EPA believes that rational economic decision
making will ensure that plants with BODS levels which are sufficiently elevated
to operate end-of-pipe biological treatment systems will install such systems.
i
Additionally, Subpart J will not result in significantly greater environ-
mental loadings than Subpart I. As stated above, the Subpart I limitations are
more stringent than their Subpart J counterparts for 30 pollutants. Table II-5
presents a listing of these 30 pollutants and indicates thai: 24 of these 30
11-11 ' V
-------
TABLE II-3
TWENTY-THREE DIRECT DISCHARGE BAT SUBPART J PLANTS
OBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PLANT NUMBER
76
105
114
260
373
657
663
709
814
877
913
991
1249
1569
1618
1774
1785
2030
2073
2590
2606
2735
2767
11-12
-------
TABLE II-4
COST COMPARISONS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
PLANT #
33
87
155
159
225
259
294
412
446
447
451
502
536
569
601
614
669
727
775
819
859
876
938
942
962
992
1327
1439
1532
1593
1688
1776
1794
1839
1986
2047
2055
2062
2090
2206
'
FLOW(MGD)
0.56
0.29
0.483
0.0749
0.209
0.312
0.0362
0.045
0.02304
0.216
1.2622
0.0029
0.0073
0.157
0.014
0.0468
0 . 038
3
0.492
1.016
0.8
0.409
0.29
0.222
0.03
0.00862
0.61
0.225
1.515
0.14
1.324
0.012
0.00066
0.2403
0.008
0.2
0.031
0.014
0.104
0.04
BIOLOGICAL COST
CAPITAL 0 & M
749,380 68,731
265,566 42,407
338,881 47,365
358,407 69,134
229,464 39,653
276,458 43,077
106,642 33,670
117,697 33,793
87,942 •• 33,470
233,064 39,920
834,724 62,589
40,391 32,974
56,877 33,157
200,730 37,442
72,640 33,317
117,697 33,782
110,338 33,721
1,507,133 137,189
342,597 47 , 565
1,092,319 109,426
1,015,264 97,928
313,017 46,650
265,566 42,407
236,664 40,150
99,208 33,598
60,872 33,204
796,198 82,652
236,664 40,244
1,023,159 101,572
189,968 36,598
1,068,593 .106,304
68,749 33,280
22,597 32,694
243,874 40,790
56,877 33,124
225,869 39,313
99,208 33,586
72,640 33,317
168,427 34,578
110,338 33,703
ALTERNATIVE COST
CAPITAL (1) 0 & M (1)
4,087,033 > 573,740
1,381,505 I 2,301,032
1,861,823 3,929,436
723,113 632,766
1,157,028 1,654,067
1,439,571 2,480,634
567,923 345,084
605,224 : 410,839
510,129 245,242
1,177,208 1,709,071
5,955,339 999,688
407,842 77,309
435,236 118,280
1,001,109 1,250,915
468,524 174,208
612,696 424,239
575,656 358,576
10,231,836 1,906,768
1,882,916 4,008,149
5,319,624 857,714
4,746,954 727,535
1,684,552 3,291,337
1,381,505 2,301,032
1,194,372 1,756,356
540,915 298,366
442,298 129,686
4,227,034 606,813
1,202,909 1,780,046
6,594,845 1,140,290
947,384 1,121,182
6,112,735 1,034,487
459,050 157,947
•387,754 51,177
1,246,011 1,901,358
439,025 124,361
1,130,827 1,583,603
545,307 305,931
468,524 174,208
827,664 849,625
584,186 373,539
( 1 ) COST ESTIMATES INCLUDE CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATION
FILTRATION , AND ACTIVATED CARBON
11-13
-------
TABLE II-4
COST COMPARISONS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
1
(PLANT #
2268
2345
2400
2419
2527
2531
2533
2647
2668
2680
2770
2771
2786
4010
TOTALS
|FLOW(MGD)
0.047
0.1608
0.22
0.138
0.4
0.225
0.316
1.697
0.186
0.11
0.27
0.454
1.5513
0.447
BIOLOGICAL COST
CAPITAL 0 & M
117,697 33,781
204,318 37,634
233,064 40,049
189,968 36,510
309,342 45,427
236,664 40,244
276,458 43,180
952,532 78,105
218,681 38,745
172,020 34,947
258,323 41,792
327,767 46,704
995,226 88,807
324,070 46,534
18,328,829 2,640,533
ALTERNATIVE COST
CAPITAL (1) 0 & M (1)
613,523 425,727
1,012,910 1,280,051
1,188,664 1,740,580
940,956 1,105,984
1,662,480 3,214,862
1,202,909 1,780,046
1,450,016 2,513,463
7,049,244 1,238,995
1,089,459 1,474,565
848,265 894,603
1,327,748 2,139,176
1,793,198 3,677,418
6,685,824 1,160,130
1,776,476 3,616,959
104,206,857 70,429,196
( 1 ) COST INCLUDES CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATION
FILTRATION , AND ACTIVATED CARBON
ANNUAL COSTS - ( 0 & M ) + 0.19 ( CAPITAL )
11-14
-------
pollutants are volatile organics which are "stripped" into the atmosphere when
discharged to the end-of-pipe biological treatment system u«ed as part of the
technology basis for Subpart I. Eighty to 95 percent of the vastewater loadings
for 19 of the 24 volatile pollutants are projected to be emitted into the air
(1987 Dev Doc., pp. VIII-227 to 8). Thus, these pollutants an: only "removed"
by biological treatment in the sense that they are emitted into, the air rather
than being discharged into receiving water.
i
For four of the remaining six pollutants listed in Table II-5 (2,4-
dlm.thylph.nol, 2-nltroph.nol, 4-nitrophenol, and phenol), the Subpart J
limitations compared to the Subpart I limitations are bas«d on identical or
better performance (the same or lower long-term averages; 1987 Dev. Doc., pp.
VII-208 to 10). However, the Maximum for Monthly Average limitations, derived
from'the long-term averages multiplied by the corresponding variability factors
(1987 Dev Doc., pp. VII-183 to 229), reflect only the different variability of
different data sets for different combinations of in-plant and end-of-pipe
treatment unit operations. Table II-6 presents the long-term averages and
Maximum for Monthly Average variability factors .for the Subpart: I and Subpart J
limitations for these four pollutants. Therefore, despite th. differences in the
limitations which set maximum permissible effluent lev«ls, the long-term
averages, and thus the long-term environmental loadings, of these pollutants will
be the same under Subparts I and J. For the two remaining regulated pollutants
(nitrobenzene and 2,4-dinitrophenol), the higher Subpart J limitations reflect
greater actual environmental loadings. In addition, Subpart J is less stringent
than Subpart I with respect to the four pollutants which Subpart J does not
regulate However, given the fact that Subpart J is more stringent than Subpart
I for 20 pollutants, Subpart J is not significantly less stringent than Subpart
I The total net annual amount of pollutants that will be discharged by the 23
plants projected to be subject to Subpart J after meeting the Subpart J limits,
beyond that which would be discharged under the Subpart I limits, is roughly
2 995 Ibs/yr assuming that the four pollutants not regulated in Subpart J are
discharged at current levels without incidental removals clue to BAT controls;
Table II-7 presents a summary of the loadings by pollutant u$ed to calculate this
difference and Table II-8 presents the summary of the additional loading of.the
four pollutants which are unregulated under Subpart J (the total industry
estimated current loadings (before BAT and PSES) are 24,166,480 Ibs/yr; projected
loadings after compliance with BAT and PSES are 571,723 Ibs/yr (1987 Dev. Doc. ,
11-15 i
-------
TABLE II-5
LIST OF 30 POLLUTANTS WITH THEIR SUBPART I LIMITATIONS
MORE STRINGENT THAN THEIR SUBPART J COUNTERPARTS
POLLUTANT
NUMBER
4*
6*
7*
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
14*
16*
23*
25*
26*
27*
29*
30*
32*
33*
34
38*
45*
52*
56
57
58
59
65
85*
86*
87*
POLLUTANT NAME
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2 ,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane
Hexach loroe thane
1,1, 2 -Trichloroethane
Chloroe thane
Chloroform
1 , 2 -Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4 -Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2 -Trans - dichloroethylene
1 , 2 -Dichloropropane
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
2 ,4-DImethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobutadiene
Nitrobenzene
2- , trophenol
4- . -rophenol
2 , - > Dinitrophenol
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
BAT
SUBPART I1
37
18
15
68
15
68
21
21
21
104
21
77
31
15
16
21
153
29
18
32
86
20
27
41
72
71
15
22
26
21
BAT
SUBPART J1
57
142
142
.196
196
180
22
196
32
110
111
196
142
142
22
25
196
196
19
142
110
142
2237
65
162
1207
19
52
28
26
1 All units are micrograms per liter.
* Volatile pollutants with limitations based on steam stripping.
11-16
-------
TABLE II-6
LONG-TERM AVERAGES (LTA) AND MAXIMUM MONTHLY VARIABILITY
FACTORS (VF) FOR FOUR POLLUTANTS WITH SUBPART J LIMITS
GREATER THAN SUBPART I j
POLLUTANT
NUMBER
34
57
58
65
POLLUTANT NAME
2 , 4 - D ime thy Ipheno 1
2-Nltrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
BAT SUBPART I
LTA
10.794
27.525
50
10.3'63
MONTHLY VF
1.59976
1.4643
1.4331
1.40602
BAi: SUBPART J
LTA
10
:>o
!>0
10
MONTHLY VF
1.86249
3.23479
3.23479
1.86249
11-17
-------
TABLE 11-7
OU
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
It
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2t
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3*
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
44
47
48
49
ICAL
1
3
*4
*•
*9
Mo
*16
*23
•*2S
*26
*27
<29
*30
±32
+ 33
34
*•»
39
*42
* 44
445
iS2
55
56
57
SB
59
60
65
66
68
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
84
APOITIQHAL
flfflflfft[_ 'l£A0f J
(cs oisauuu
PLANTS BETOND BAT SUBPAIT I
PUNT
COUNT
7
7
16
9
7
5
6
8
8
4
7
7
8
10
7
7
7
7
3
9
4
7
12
8
2
8
8
0
10
S
4
4
4
4
17
9
6
6
7
4
5
4
4
7
9
7
7
7
8
MB
ANNUAL
IAW
LOAD
17598.02
37787.45
95236.51
114245.99
13717.95
5065.80
42816.34
586326.09
671.18
204483.41
50144.01
134173.94
31105.61
103071.77
5058.04
1664.63
191669.35
524091.78
54354.99
167029.75
3ZS4.S4
30766.39
8381.42
1547.72
145.23
236552.89
710447.63
9
11462.03
221648.32
2232.95
5293.44
5708.21
2999.10
579000.10
16358.05
10193.23
9829.00
39755.90
382.40
132J3
112UB
197.96
2263.09
5077.49
5268.24
17203.90
17255.66
2914.17
23 PUNTS
CUBBfJIT
LOAD
123.48
624.27
349.13
1216.52
124.85
533.28
200.00
27153.78
124.94
119.98
167.32
2129.84
837.39
1654.78
832.38
326.26
514.80
167.52
1140.26
2064.88
234.11
123.48
185.09
201.45
143.60
3436.94
837.59
,
125.38
144.93
285.01
508.94
615.59
244.29
23BJ4
762.06
221.61
529.41
129.27
101.79
101.79
101.79
101.79
123.48
233.29
123.48
123.12
123.48
135.83
20 BT BAT X
LIMITATIONS
BATLOAQ
I
82.93
421.50
215.24
133.09
84 JO
311.98
113.94
1079.21
86 JO
61.16
126.96
126.96
634.83
223.19
363.26
217.40
86.96
126.96
112.56
836.56
1S6.76
82.93
144.53
152.79
46.08
296.01
634.83
.
84.82
97.85
190.84
340.79
412.82
163.58
197.79
418.88
148.62
3SS.03
86.96
61.16
61.16
68.16
68.16
82.93
192.74
82.93
82.57
82.93
91.22
JSMIT J
BATLIBAO
J
82.928
421 .S03
264.149
zn.daio
124.033
4S2.6J3
200.004
8B.273
•4.303
119.979
126.963
126.963
634.198
315.093
484.911
326.236
151.690
126.9&1
123.812
816.598
234. 1U
82.928
10.007
152.791
46.079
141.568
634.828
.
84.834
144.934
136J16
340.791
615.588
16I.ST9
197.788
392.147
107.314
191.156
86.961
61.158
68.161
68.159
68.158
82.92S
192.73JS
82.92(8
82.567
82.928
82.930
8ATLOAO
J •
IATLOAD I
0.000
0.000
48.905
98.536
40.553
140.671
86.059
•253.931
0.000
51.821
0.000
0.000
0.000
91.906
121.656
108.855
64.729
0.000
11.236
0.000
77J50
0.000
40.553
0.000
0.000
•154.439
0.000
•
0.000
47.083
-S4.526
0.000
202.763
0.000
0.000
•26.737
•41.282
•156.874
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
•6.293
ALL 6ATA IN POUNDS PER TEAR
11-18
-------
ICAL
AWITIBttL AMMUAL
KAMTS
PUMT
COUNT
TABLE 11-7
OISOAMD rr IAT SUPA»T J
IAT SUVAIT ! LIMITATION
FOB 23 FtAMTS
SAM
LOAD
50
SI
52
S3
54
55
56
57
SB
59
nt
120
121
122
124
128
LOAD
BATLOAO
I
1ATLOAP
J
•ATLOtfi
J -
UTIQAD I
9
16
8
7
7
4
5
6 '
0
9
40898.58
96087.«5
1*9932.64
3866.69
70707.39
469556.15
21*506.34
613976.30
2168011.01
S897S09.41
99.79
231.55
220.03
3866.49
10917.94
9129.10
11*3.44
2425.42
51142.39
138447.44
1*1.56
210.99
121.70
3866-49
ttfff TT
6194.69
1251.09
1626.53
237.38
2SI.45
1SIU4
Stti.69
66BLJ3
6194.69
1291.09
1«Zi.53
11l1o!l3 1I111IJ.13
42210.07 4287E.69
75 .815
24.457
25.740
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
^mmmmmm
6*2.625
Volatile pollutants with limitations based on steam strlppiig.
ALL DATA IH
11-19
TEAR
-------
TABLE II-8
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL LOADINGS DISCHARGED AT CURRENT LEVELS
FROM THE FOUR POLLUTANTS UNREGULATED BY BAT SUBPART J LIMITATIONS
FOR 23 PLANTS
CHEMICAL
NUMBER
24
31
35
36
PLANT
COUNT
6
6
5
5
ANNUAL
RAW LOAD
41614.32
31505.36
12270.27
4419.67
89809.61
CURRENT
LOAD
123.12
221.61
610.79
1376.87
2332.40
ALL DATA IN POUNDS PER YEAR
11-20
-------
pp. VIII-271 to 74)). Moreover, 561 pounds of the additional "removal" achieved
by Subpart I is accomplished by volatilization of pollutants into the air during
biological treatment, assuming an 80 percent volatilization rape (52 FR 42559-60;
1987 Dev. Doc., pp. VIII-275 to 279).
Even if none of the 84 plants were to comply with the BPT limits through
the use of end-of-pipe biological treatment, then they would all be subject to
BAT Subpart J limitations. In this case, the total annual amount of pollutants
regulated in Subpart J that would be discharged by all 84 plants after meeting
the Subpart J limits, beyond that which would be permitted under the Subpart I
limits, is roughly 1,888 Ibs/yr. Table II-9 presents a summary of the loadings
by pollutant which were used to calculate this difference. Adding the additional
loadings of the four pollutants which are unregulated under Subpart J, assuming
they are discharged at current levels without incidental removals due to BAT
controls, increases the loadings by 4,181 Ibs/yr; Table II-1.0 presents the
summary of additional loading of the four pollutants which are unregulated under
Subpart J. The total difference in loadings between Subparts I and J would be
6,069 Ibs/yr. Similarly, 1,202 pounds of the additional "removal" achieved by
Subpart I is accomplished by volatilization of pollutants into the air during
biological treatment:. '
In sum, because EPA believes that plants which ares able to operate
biological treatment systems to meet the BPT limitations will;do so,, and because
Subpart J is not projected to produce significantly greater environmental
loadings of pollutants than Subpart I, it is not necessary for EPA to limit the
availability of Subjpart J.
I
3. Adverse Effects of Creating a BOD5 Floor ,
Even if it were feasible to limit the availability of Subpart J, and even
if plants were likely to make BPT treatment decisions based on the cost of BAT
treatment, attempting to establish a BOD5 floor would likely have the undesirable
effects of undermining both EPA's policy of promoting, pollution prevention and
the application by industry of rational, integrated waste management and
wastewater treatment systems.
11-21
-------
TABLE 11-9
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL LOADINGS DI3OUXCED IT IAT SW«T J
PLANTS IETOND SAT SUBMIT I LIMITATIONS
n» 8* PLANTS
on
«
i
2
3
i
V
5
7
«
8
10
11
12
13
15
1&
IB
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
&0
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
34
37
38
39
40 •
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
44
49
COMICAL
HUNB0
1
3
*.4
i.7
*• 9
*10
*12
M3
*14
Y25
*27
1.29
iSO
*S2
*SS
34
39
*44
¥45
i52
~ • *•
55
56
57
58
59
60
65
6*
61
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
84
PLANT
COUNT
23
51
23
19
|
9
19
22
6
IS
15
15
26
15
10
10
20
10
14
6
9
34
12
4
23
14
o
30
IS
9
8
11
6
48
18
14
9
16
7
7
' 7
7
10
19
11
13
11
12
JUM,,,
RAW
LOAD
18563.43
500661.76
435195.86
116259.01
27166J3
5066.69
62819.81
1163043.88
1866.18
204494.35
62615.34
32S347.04
125648.20
167197.26
12789.70
1665.08
191679.85
533690.33
54425.46
167499.30
3234.71
30767.06
67185.88
2206 JO
145.30
473467.85
905780.92
26729.96
1416139.25
3046.11
5594.39
8092.62
2999.26
14655943.38
19301.61
14512.35
24502.68
47707.39
466.24
1S2J3
157.74
242.87
2335.05
9984.61
5816.97
20701.21
19867.49
3315.50
cuuorr
LOAD
1088.35
4941.39
1282.19
1716.10
290.28
535.60
200.08
37583.60
565.71
119.98
269.34
2361.31
2331.56
3155.31
1669.59
326.46
514.88
451.15
1144.61
2468.97
234.12
123.48
499.39
672.55
143.62
4723.47
1282.29
m
3259.S9
537.13
SOS.69
701.23
1009.65
244.30
2449.99
1062.47
548.91
1086.97
312.07
185.61
101.79
146.69
146.69
195.33
406.65
311.51
684.33
201. CO
474.37
IATLOAO
I
86.85
1905.43
574.14
290.83
174.82
312.30
113.97
2173.76
230.12
61.16
159.00
177.07
1222.96
534.94
948.13
217.46
86.98
209.25
112.94
1051.49
156.77
82.93
332.73
182.00
46.10
612.58
764.92
.
259.57
206.81
239.01
410.10
498.84
163.59
633.80
699.92
231.91
432.84
134.20
71.16
68.16
71.16
71.16
85.92
255.85
107.27
180.77
105.20
118.00
UTLOAD
J
86.85
1905.43
919 .35
801.21
290.28
452.97
200.08
1662.28
230.12
119.98
159.00
177.07
1222.96
839.86
1105.36
326.39
151.77
205.25
124.23
1051.49
234.12
82.93
486.71
182.00
46.10
292.97
764.92
«
259.57
537.88
170.72
410.10
932.48
163.59
633.80
655.25
167.49
241.59
134.20
71.16
a. 16
71.16
71.16
85.92
255.85
107.27
180.77
105.20
107.27
IATLQAB
J -
IATLOAO I
0.000
0.000
345.207
510.382
115.460
140.671
86.116
•511.472
0.000
51.821
0.000
0.000
0.000
304.911
157.225
108.933
64.786
0.000
11.291
0.000
77.350
0.000
153.974
0.000
0.000
•319.605
0.000
•
0.000
331.065
•68.288
0.000
433.648
0.000
0.000
-44.676
•64.420
•191.256
. 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0*000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
•10.727
ALL DATA IN MUBS KX TEAR
11-22
-------
ou
50
51
52
53
54
55
54
57
58
59
ICAL
*8S
119
120
121
122
124
128
TABLE 11-9
APOITIOUL ANNUAL LOADIBOS 01
HANTS UTOO IAT SUBMIT
rat 84
rr MT SUMMIT
LIMITATIONS
PUUT
COUNT
RAW
LOAD
euunt
LOAP
UTLOAO
I
IIATUAD
21
54
17
18
12
11
12
11
0
17
41147.54
945348.47
174427.17
11242.31
73145.20
507700.55
2373151.85
778015.97
2892078.33
29744549.47
1081
.87
2349.32
474
4144
.12
.72
12180.44
24549
10492
.38
.44
3143.25
9
42454.47
201228.28
230.90
433.07
190.51
4144.72
7115.02
13313.48
2733.61
1914.80
.
14034.44
63134.81
314.31
714.04
227.95
AM4.72
1115.02
13313.68
JfS3.61
1914.80
«
14034.44
67023.02
BATLOAO
J •
•ATLCAO I
83.41
12.97
37.U.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•
0.00
1888.21
Volatile pollutants with limitations based on ste«m stripping.
ALL PATA IN POMPS PER TEAK
II-23
-------
TABLE 11-10
• ADDITIONAL ANNUAL LOADINGS DISCHARGED AT CURRENT LEVELS
FROM THE FOUR POLLUTANTS UNREGULATED BY BAT SUBPART J LIMITATIONS
FOR 84 PLANTS
CHEMICAL
NUMBER
24
31
35
36
PLANT
COUNT
14
8
13
11
ANNUAL
RAW LOAD
42126.63
31506.97
19699.66
6134.17
99467.43
CURRENT
LOAD
175.37
221.62
1455.68
2327.84
4180.51
ALL DATA IN POUNDS PER YEAR
11-24
-------
A review of waste management practices and well-designed and -operated
wastewater treatment system configurations in use by the OCPSF manufacturing
facilities reveals that there are numerous approaches for implementing effective
pollutant control practices (1987 Dev. Doc., p. VII-4). In recognition of the
extraordinary complexity of the OCPSF- industry and the impracticability of
developing a detailed knowledge of the production practices and the factors
affecting wastewater treatment at each of the OCPSF plants, EPA based the BAT
limitations on certain reasonable, simplifying assumptions and conclusions (e.g. ,
effluent quality is independent of the product mix, size,and geographic location
of a facility; treatment trains which achieve equivalent removal efficiencies are
designed on a plant-by-plant basis (1983 Dev. Doc. Vol. Il.lsec. IV; 1987 Dev.
Doc. Sec. IV)). In the absence of such detailed knowledge, and in view of the
fundamental, delicate inter-relationships among conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutant controls, the Agency developed and. promulgated a
regulatory scheme which gave the regulated community some degree of management
discretion in selecting appropriate combinations of source controls or pollution
prevention techniques as well as appropriate in-plant or end-of-pipe wastewater
management and treatment techniques. EPA is concerned that the attempt to
establish a BOD5 floor would result in plants' making undesirable treatment
decisions which the Agency did not interid; for example, a plant that has already
installed or is considering installing in-plant product and by-product recovery
may feel compelled to reduce the effectiveness of in-plant control to ensure that
sufficient organic matter is available to be able to operatw an end-of-pipe
biological treatment system, or to operate such a system in a cost-effective
fashion. .
For each of the seven product-based BPT subcategories, the technology basis
consists of biological treatment, which usually involves either activated sludge
or aerated lagoons, followed by clarification and preceded by appropriate process
controls and in-plant treatment to assure that the biological system may be
operated optimally (52 FR 42536). In other words, the success of end-of-pipe
conventional pollutant control often depends on the efficiency of in-plant waste
management practices as well as toxic and non-conventional pollutant controls.
To control the wide variety of toxic pollutants and variable levels of
conventional pollutants generated by the OCPSF industry, effective waste
management practices typically include a broad range of in-plant controls,
11-25 ' •
-------
process modifications, and end-of-pipe treatment techniques. Host plants have
implemented programs that combine elements of both in-plant control and end-of-
pipe wastewater treatment. The configuration of controls and technologies
differs from plant to plant, corresponding to the differing mixes of products
manufactured by different facilities (1987 Dev. Doc., pp. II-2 to 5). In-plant
controls provide several advantages and perform varying functions at different
plants. Some are capable of completely eliminating a waste stream, while others
recover valuable products and by-products of the manufacturing process. In-plant
control may reduce end-of-pipe treatment costs, which often offset the in-plant
treatment costs. In-plant control can also remove pollutants inhibitory or not
amenable to end-of-pipe treatment schemes. In-plant treatment is also used to
take advantage of the more efficient treatment of low volume, concentrated and
homogeneous waste streams generated by specific unit operations prior to
commingling with other in-plant process wastewater flows (1983 Proposed Dev.
Doc., pp. 119 to 122).
Furthermore, depending on the specific composition of the wastewater, many
pollutants may be removed to a greater or lesser degree by a technology not
designed for removal of that pollutant. For example, a physical-chemical
treatment system designed to remove suspended solids will also remove a portion
of the BOD5 of a wastewater if the solids removed are organic and biodegradable.
It is common in the OCPSF industry to use a combination of .-.hnologies adapted
to the individual wastewater stream to achieve desired res-.,.t:s (1983 proposed
Dev. Doc., Vol 1 p. 96).
In a smaller, less complex industry, it might be possible for EPA to assess
more completely the intricacies of each plant's or each plant category's
treatment system. But the OCPSF point source category is simply too complex for
the Agency to approach perfect plant-specific knowledge of the industry, and EPA
is reluctant to impose a regulation which would likely result in irrational and
undesirable treatment decisions, such as limiting source reduction or pollution
prevention measures in order to operate an end-of-pipe biological treatment
system in a cost-effective fashion.
Finally, NRDC argues that EPA's own rulemaking record indicates that plants
with low BOD5 levels can sustain biological treatment by adding "nutrient" to the
influent, or by using "pure oxygen" or "extended aeration" biological systems,
11-26
-------
citing the 1987 Dev. Doc. at VII-63, 127. NRDC misunderstands the record on this
point. The Development Document merely indicates that these throe solutions can
reduce problems caused by low BOD5 in certain wastestreams, not that they are
universal, generally applicable solutions to low BODS levels. These techniques
can be used to maintain a healthy population of microorganisms us long as there
is a sufficient basic substrate level on which the organisms can feed. In
effect, NRDC suggests that EPA treat these techniques ; as; "demonstrated
technologies" which should form part of the basis of the BAT limitations. EPA
is not aware of any demonstrated use of these techniques as a substitute for a
sufficient substrate to operate a biological treatment system.
[
4. Conclusion
i
In conclusion, EPA believes that it is neither necessary nor feasible for
the Agency to limit the applicability of Subpart J. As a result, the Agency
proposes to leave the current subcategorization scheme unchanged.
11-27
-------
III. BAT SUBPART J LIMITATIONS AND PSES STANDARDS
A. BACKGROUND ,
Subpart J established direct discharge toxic pollutant limitations for
approximately 23 plants that were projected to comply with BPT limitations
without the use of end-of-pipe biological treatment or contract hauling. The
Subpart J toxic pollutant numerical limitations were based on the performance of
in-plant wastewater treatment technology including steam stripping to remove
volatile priority pollutants, chemical precipitation for metals, alkaline
chlorination for cyanide, and in-plant biological treatment for removal of
selected priority pollutants including polynuclear aromatics, phthalate esters,
acrylonitrile, phenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenol (52 FR 42538 - 45, 1987 Dev. Doc.
Vol. I, pp. II-8 to 11).
Numerical standards for 20 of the Subpart J pollutants were based on the
performance of three biological treatment systems with detention times between
1.6 and 17.2 days. In contrast, detention times between 1 to 2.1 days were used
to estimate the costs of compliance based on the model in-plant biological
treatment systems [(1987 Dev. Doc., pp. VIII-189); OCPSF Record R. 93970-4020;
EPA 9-23-88 Response Brief, pp. 244-59].
CMA challenged the Subpart J limitations based on in-plant biological
treatment arguing, in part, that the plants used by EPA to derive the limitations
based on in-plant biological treatment have.more treatment in place than EPA's
model treatment used to estimate costs of compliance and that EPA significantly
underestimated the costs of installing in-plant biological treatment (CMA's 4-25-
88 Brief, pp. 58-76).
After the Fifth Circuit initially upheld these Subpart J limitations (870
F.2d at 240-2), CMA petitioned for reconsideration, again arguing, in part, that
the Agency underestimated the costs of compliance due to the differences between
the detention times of the three plants that provided the basis for the numerical
standards and the detention times of the model technology that provided the basis
for estimating the engineering costs of compliance. (CMA's 5-3-89 Petition for
Review Brief, pp. 8-11) The Court concluded that the detention time was a key
variable in determining the effectiveness of biological treatment and that EPA
III-l
-------
had failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis to conclude that biological systems
with 2.1 days detention would control pollutants as effectively as the biological
systems with longer detention times (885 F.2d at 265).
The decision remanded limitations for 19 of the 20 Subpurc J pollutants
based on in-plant biological treatment. The Court left in effect the limitations
for acrylonitrile that were based upon the treatment system with the 1.6 days
detention time. As noted in the June 29, 1990 revocation notice (55 FR 26691),
the Agency also withdrew the corresponding NSPS, PSES, and PI3NS standards which
were based on the remanded Subpart J limits.
Since the remand was based on the designs of the model treatment systems
used to estimate the costs of compliance rather than the technical basis for the
numerical limitations, EPA has decided to repropose the same numerical standards
with revised costs of compliance. As described below, the revised compliance
costs are based on revised model in-plant biological treatment systems with
increased residence times as a function of. reported or projected raw waste toxic
pollutant concentrations. .
B. REVISIONS TO METHODOLOGY
In responding to the remand issues, the Agency initially reassessed its
1987 methodology in developing the estimated costs of compliance for the BAT and
PSES limitations and standards. The Agency developed a revised cost "baseline"
in addition to evaluating the increased costs of compliance for the redesigned
in-plant biological model treatment systems. The Agency's roview of the costing
procedures used for the 1987 publication identified several errors in the
technology selections and wastewater flows assumed by EPA as the basis to
estimate engineering costs of compliance. Correction of these errors increased
the costs for some plants and decreased the costs for others. In addition,
estimated treatment upgrade costs which were described in the development
document but not included in the final economic impact analysis are now included
in the new baseline. Thus, EPA's revised estimated BAT *tnd PSES costs of
compliance rest on baseline figures which are about 2 and 5 percent higher than
the respective BAT and PSES cost estimates reported at promulgation.
III-2
-------
To these new baseline figures are added revised in-plant biological
treatment costs of compliance, which were developed based on increased detention
times as a function of reported or projected plant raw waste concentrations.
Even though the estimated treatment costs change, the raw waste and effluent
loadings as well as the numerical limitations for the 19 remanded pollutants
remain unchanged from promulgation. The reassessment also considers potential
land availability issues due to the increased size of the model biological
treatment systems employing longer detention times.
The engineering costs of compliance are based on incremental compliance
costs for each plant. Plant-specific compliance costs are based on one or more
treatment unit operations selected from model steam stripping, chemical
precipitation, chlorine oxidation, activated carbon, or in-plant biological
treatment systems depending on the concentrations of individual priority
pollutants at each plant. Annualized compliance costs are derived from the
capital, operation and maintenance, and land costs for each wastewater treatment
and sludge handling/disposal operation as well as monitoring costs. Contract
hauling costs are used in lieu of treatment costs for flows less than 500 gpd
(1987 Dev. Doc., Section VIII). With the exception of the baseline revisions
described below, the changes in the estimated engineering costs of compliance and
corresponding economic impact analyses are due only to the revised costs for the
model in-plant biological treatment systems.
1. New Baseline Costs
The compliance cost estimates and corresponding economic impact analyses
summarized in the November 5, 1987 Federal Register notice did not include estim-
ated steam stripper and chemical precipitation upgrade costs. During development
of the OCPSF guidelines, the steam stripper upgrade costs were developed for
existing in-place treatment for three direct discharge plants without end-of-pipe
biological treatment and nine indirect dischargers. The cost estimates
associated with the steam stripping upgrades are presented in Table III-l.
The chemical precipitation upgrade costs were developed for 20 direct and
nine indirect discharging plants with chemical precipitation in place. The ccst
estimates associate with these chemical precipitation upgrades are presented in
Table III-2.
III-3
-------
TABLE III-1^- i
COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
BAT (Direct Plants)
Plant No.
105
913
1785
-
Capital
Cost ($)*
4,350
18,000
3,800
O&M
Cost ($)*
70,000
600,000
48,000
PSES
Plant No.
72
283
494
702
1657
1740
2635
4014
4047
(Indirect Plants)
Capital
Cost (§)*
2,600
9,000
7,800
3 ,000
8 , 600
3 , 300
9,000
2,600
2,600
O&M
Cost ($)*
9,000
420,000
240,000
20,000
295,000
30,000
420,000
5,500
5,500
* Cost estimates are presented in 1982 dollars
1987 Dev. Doc. p. VIII-120
III-4
-------
TABLE.Ill-2
COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
BAT (Direct Plants)
Plant No.
63
190
485
695
775
871
1059
1348
1522
1572
1769
1785
2030
2292
2429
2447
2474
2692
2739
O&M Cost*
($/year)
4,750
1,700
3,500
60,000
4,750
3,750
14,500
1,000
48,000
25,000
29,000
7,000
1,600
1,000
1,000
1,000
2,850
1,000
1,000
PSES (Indirect Plants)
Plant No.
72
206
212
293
905
1126
1357
1534
1848
O&H Cost*
($/year)
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,600
1,000
1,600
1,000
3,500
1,000
"
1 PLANT NO.
399
CAPITAL COST* ($)
2,000,000
O&M COST*
(S/YEAR)
335,000
LAND COST* ($)
9,100
* Cost estimates are presented in 1982 dollars.
1987 Dev. Doc. p. VIII-181
III-5
-------
In addition, another BAT (direct) plant, - Plant 399, was costed for a
complete lime precipitation system since its in-place precipitation unit utilizes
sodium hydroxide to facilitate the recovery of zinc; therefore, the plant would
not be able to improve its system with the methods used for costing other plants.
The costs associated for the complete lime precipitation system for this plant
are shown in Table III-2 also. • |
•
Prior to promulgation a separate economic impact assessment of these
upgrade costs generally demonstrated insignificant incremental economic impacts
for these plants (1987 Dev. Doc., pp. VIII-118' to 120 and VXIX-174 to 181).
However, at this" time. EPA is including these upgrade cost* in the new baseline
analysis cost estimates for the current remand study.
The revised total cost estimates for all the plants affected by the steam
stripping and chemical precipitation upgrades along with the total cost estimates
at promulgation are presented in Table III-3_.
The Agency also reassessed the procedures used to estimate the BAT and PSES
costs of compliance. The procedures generally included the use of reported or
projected raw waste concentrations for. each toxic pollutant present in each
plant's product/process waste streams. Then, depending on the pollutant groups
and pollutant concentrations, the Agency selected in-plant ,and/or end-of-pipe
treatment technology for cost estimating purposes (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIII-7 to
28) For example, steam stripping was costed for volatile pollutants above
selected concentrations and chemical precipitation, for metals above selected
concentrations. The treatment technology reassessment, which discovered several
errors in transferring individual unit operation costs into the final economic
impact analysis, resulted in revised plant costs for one ciir«ct discharge plant
.and 22 indirect discharge plants. These corrections increased costs for some
plants and decreased costs for others. For example, the technology basis for
plant 1718's cost estimate was a combination of in-plant biological treatment and
contract hauling at promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIIIJB7I). but should have
been based on contract hauling alone. The basis for plant 2057's cost estimate
was steam stripping and in-plant biological treatment at promulgation (1987 Dev.
Doc. pp. VIII-B72). but should have been based on stoam stripping alone.
III-6
-------
TABLE III-3
REVISED PLANT-BY-PLANT COST ESTIMATES FOR PLANTS WITH
STEAM STRIPPING AND CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
BAT /Direct Plants):
PLANT
HO.
63
105
190
399
485
695
775
871
913
1059
1348
1522
1572
1769
1785
2030
2292
2429
2447
2474
2692
2739
COST ESTIMATES AT PROMULGATION
TOTAL CAPITAL
COST (S)«
0
1,079.744
731.177
0
1,866,959
2,383,693
540,068
451,103
965,727
0
811,772
7,875.173
804,353
1,312.598
623,152
577,550
740,217
117,139
TOTAL OtM
COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
0
2,052,382
1.071,083
0
2,951,008
164,490
644,016
39.242
195.760
0
0
4,092,048
9,689.672
136,003
1,387,596
160,108
116.539
0
423,814
0
86,578
LAND COSTS
($)•
0
319,782
66*000
0
114,488
94,475
3.151
6,002
38,423
0
0
22,573
0
157,155
19,563
79,420
35,602
62,203
0
28,735
0
8,235
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($>*
0
4,350
731.177
2,000,000
1,086,959
2,383,843
540,068
451,103
983,727
0
0
811,772
0
7,875,173
808,155
1,312,598
623,152
577,550
0
740,217
0
117,139
TOTAL O&M
COSTS
4,750
70,000
1,072,783
335,000
2,954,508
244,440
648,766
42,992
795,760
14,500
1.000
4.140,048
25.000
9,718,672
191.003
1.389,196
161,108
117.539
1,000
426,664
1,000
87,378
LAND COST
<$>*
Q
66,000
9,100
114,488
94,475
3,151
6,002
38,423
o
Q
22,573
o
157,155
19,563
79.420
35,602
62,203
g
28,735
Q
PSES (Indirect Plants)
PLANT
HO.
72
206
212
283
293
494
702
905
1126
1357
1534
1657
1740
1848
2635
4014
4047
COST ZSTIHATZS AT PROMULGATION
TOTAL CAPITAL
COST ($)•
108,989
529,234
33,247
1,929,490
694,026
320,686
45,804
511,629
1,264,676
492,562
509,230
2,124,901
547,859
43,397
2.287,933
352.094
432,268
TOTAL O&M
COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
107,576
47,464
31,778
153,681
180,783
44,996
31,778
81,770
2,361,477
42,073
42,080
295,903
101.476
25,019
193,123
63,076
88,173
LAND COSTS
<$)•
'
21,252
13,519
949
68,756
7,103
5,493
1,315
10,353
53.330
8,574
4,139
25,893
20,347
289
50,626
1,328
1,892
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($)•
111.589
529,234
33,247
1.938,440
694,028
328,486
48,804
511.629
1.264,676
492.562
509,230
2,133,501
550,859
43,397
2,296,933
354,694
434,868
TOTAL OHM
COSTS
117,376
48.464
32,778
573,681
182,383
284,996
51,778
82,770
2,363,077
43,073
45,580
590,903
131,476
26,019
613,123
68.576
93,673
LAND COST
<$)•
21,252
13,519
949
68.756
7,103
5,493
1.315
10.353
53,330
8.574
4,139
25,893
20,347
289
50,626
1.328
1,892
III-7
-------
However, in the case of other plants such as plant 293, cost estimates were based
on steam stripping, in-plant biological, activated carbon, and chlorine oxidation
treatment at promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIII-B68), but tthould have also
included chemical precipitation. These technology corrections were also included
in the new baseline analysis for the current remand study and are presented in
Table III-4. The revised total cost estimates based on these corrections versus
the cost estimates at promulgation for the plants that were affected by the
corrections and are shown in Table III-5. ,
The Agency also reassessed the flow basis used to estimate costs of
compliance and found several errors and inconsistencies i.n rounding off or
truncating reported flows. For the new baseline analysis, the Agency corrected
the flows used to estimate costs of compliance for 14 indirect discharge plants.
Corrections of these errors also increased costs for some plants and decreased
costs for others. For example, the flow for plant 249 was truncated to 0.0162
MGD at promulgation, but should have been 0.01623 MGD; and for plant 438, the
flow was rounded off to 0.051 MGD at promulgation, but should have been 0.0508
MGD. The flow, corrections for all the 14 indirect plants are presented in Table
III-6. The revised cost estimates for these 14 plants affected by the flow cor*
rections versus the as promulgated cost estimates are also shown, in Table III-6.
"
•\
2. Revised In-plant Biological Treatment Costs
Revised compliance costs for BAT subpart J direct dischargers and PSES
indirect dischargers were developed based on in-plant biological treatment
systems with 3.5 to 17.2 day detention times (84 hrs. to 413 hrs.). The
principal basis for the revised designs includes an analysis 6f the OCPSF record
support related to biological treatment design and performance for pollutant
phenol. OCPSF facilities with biological treatment in-place .and with relatively
high pheol raw waste concentrations were identified from the verification, 5
CMA/EPA Plant Study, and the EPA 12 Plant Sampling Studies as well as the 308
Questionnaire Data Base. When available; the aeration basin detention time, and
the average influent and affluent phenol concentration for each of these plants
were identified. Table III-7 presents the results of this analysis. Based on
the information obtained it was determined that plants with raw phenol
concentrations of up to 50 mg/1 would comply with the numerical phenol
limitations with biological treatment system with detention t:im« up to 72 hours
III-8
-------
TABLE III-4
TECHNOLOGY CORRECTIONS
A. Direct (BAT) Plants:
PLANT NO.
488
TECHNOLOGIES' COSTED AT
PROMULGATION"'
CP, SS, PB
TECHNOLOGIES COSTED FOR
REVISED BASELINE COST(l>
CP, SS, PB, AC, CN
B. Indirect (PSES^ Plants:
PLANT NO.
58
161
293
417
607
797
1172
1191
1320
1659
1666
1716
1718
1838
1848
2057
2129
2232
2507
2677
4042
4072
TECHNOLOGIES COSTED AT
PROMULGATION* 1}
PB
SS, CP
SS, CP, PB, CN
PB
CP, AC
CP, AC
SS, CP
SS, CP, PB
SS, CH
CP, AC
CP, AC
CP, AC
PB, CH
SS, BP, CH
CH Cost - $592,249
SS, FB
CP. AC
Monitoring Cost-$29,539
PB
SS, CP, PB
PB
SS, CP
TECHNOLOGIES COSTED FOR
REVISED BASELINE COST<1)
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
SS, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
SS, PB, CH
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CH
CH
CH Cost - $396,317
SS
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
Monitoring Cost-$26,827
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
(1) CP - Chemical Precipitation
SS - Steam Stripping
AC - Activated Carbon
CN - Cyanide Destruction
PB - In-Plant Biological
CH - Contract Hauling
III-9
-------
TABLE III-5 !
REVISED COST ESTIMATES BASED ON TECHNOLOGY CORRECTIONS
A. Direct fBAT) Plants: I
PLANT No.
488
COST ESTIMATES AT PRCHULCATION •
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS (S)*
893,795
TOTAL O&M
COSTS
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($)*
1.154,248
TOTAL 04.M
COSTS
<$/YEAR)«
408,0113
LAND COSTS
(S)*
109,650
B. Indirect (PSES^ Plants:
PLANT No.
SB
161
2gj
*17
607
797
1172
1191
1320
1659
1666
1716
1718
1838
i848(1)
2057
2129
2232
2507
2677
4042
4072
COST ESTIMATES AT PROMULGATION
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS (S)*
34,492
845,849
694,026
91.684
418,470
358,393
787,371
839,997
454,324
488,007
408,385
455,843
74,324
454,719
43,397
525.695
407,442
1,050,903
73,357
913.257
88.716
204,416
TOTAL OU4
COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
31.778
185,652
180,783
33,044
258,962
82,077
91,247
78,013
10,583
521,563
225.344
394,172
32,282
10.410
25.019
62,236
222.266
396,647
32,245
123,267
32,902
74,951
LAND COSTS
<$)•
1.342
16,526
7,103
23.250
19.007
6,596
• 8,989
3,581
2.988
32,462
105 ,'779
29,601
1.784
8,460
289
11,176
24,552
18.899
3,489
5,026
5,308
4,316
REVISED COiiT ESTIMATES^5
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS (S)*
0
1,578,954
1,247.793
0
988,390
892,176
686.681
941.311
488,265
1,093,815
972.755
1,044,991
0
0
43.397
454,324
971,267
1,050,903
0
1,194,141
0
905,710
TOTAL O&M
COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
0
2,201,7:10
2.2!)2,i:SO
0
3:»6.9'tt
149,820
21)5,649
228. U 9
<12.4:S5
6118,591
301.179
4111, 746
0
0
26,019
29,612
297.915
396,647
0
920,690
0
170,314
LAND COSTS
CS>*
0
78,272
26.785
0
29,710
11,198
14,714
91,402
4,327
49.392
166,578
45,385
0
0
289
7,056
38,692
18,899
0
14,997
0
10,817
NOTES:
* Colt • stimit**. pr«»«nt«d in 1982 dollars.
(1) Revised cose «»tim»t«i include up»r»d«« cost also.
111-10
-------
ZA1LX ZII-C
FLOW OOBKCTIORS
PLANT HO.
249
310
438
1194
1237
1326
1891
1971
2288
2293
2341
2495
2501
2776
FLOW AT PROMULGATION (MOD)
0.0162
0.0214
0.051
0.0017
0.007
0.0161
0.233
0.016
0.00179
0.0053
0.455
0.12
0.00794
0.00543
PLOW AT REVISED IASELIHE COST
(1990) (HBO)
0.01623
0.02143
0.050*
0.00179
0.00702
0.01612
0.2326
0.0161
0.0018
0.00526
0.4547
0.1201
0.00795
0.00551
RIYISED COST ESTIMATES BASED 0» FLOW CCOUCCTXOBS
PLAHT Ho.
249
310
438
1194
1237
1326
1891
1971
2288
2293
2341
2495
2501
2776
COST ESTIMATES AT PROMULGATION
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS (S)*
858,441
538,978
579,776
486,918
508,835
530,181
734,548
858,066
487,507
503.406
1,162,583
985,375
839,491
927.294
TOTAL O&M
COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
86,674
60,478
87,484
42,078
46,872
43,045
290,010
84,780
42,354
46,420
335,800
222.026
77,377
207,907
LAND COSTS
(S)"*
6/528
7,»94
3,957
11,555
51,844
3,403
5,986
3,676
10,208
51,142
29,891
21.924
5,048
33,901
REVISED COST ESTIMATES
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($)•
858,497
539,026
579.571
487,507
508,894
530,218
734,356
858,254
487,571
503,268
1.162.478
985,442
840,018
928 , 028
TOTAL OtM
COSTS
<$/Y£AR)«
86,676
60,480
87,473
42,078
46,872
43,047
290,000
84,787
42,354
46,420
339,795
222,029
77,377
209,287
LAND COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
6,529
7,995
3,955
11,562
51,852
3,404
5,984
3,678
10,209
51,125
29,886
21.927
5,048
33,983
* Cost estimates presented in 1982 dollars.
III-ll
-------
a
H
a
\
|
SOURCE
(A
1
1
£
B
u
a
H. 2
S £
3^
g§
H
u «
If
u
£
^
§1
is
Ij
i
a.
1
1
•
b
i
o
"
o
«
P4
>
*
U
I
a
S
«
^
2
e
R
>
CM
W
b
0
a
b
e
0
rlflcatl
1
"
o
*
S
b.
M
O
8
S
Q.
esi
:
s
*
&
0
X
i
«
s
H
u
b
1
quo it lo
e
b
?
o
•a
o
i
a
X
o
e
£
>
fM
CM
M
1
U
j
"a.
CM
J
CM
i
2
g
H
*j
b
£
g
clflcatt
CM
§
r*
s
>
$
b
O
V
b
g
w
u
•4
9
0
JS
S
e
o
S
>
«
b
e
'a
CM
-
-
ID
CM
•4T
„•
H
CM
a
V
b
e
"3.
CM
i
s
o
n
i
01
S
I
j
i
i
in
s
CM"
a.
o>
5
t
S
g
rlflcatl
5
a
«
a*
>
o
r+
1
G
CM
•
J
§
£
o>
«
00
H
N
I
I
i
u
e
-------
(however, 84 hours or 3.5 days was used as a safety factor), plants with raw
waste phenol concentrations up to 300 mg/1 would comply with detention times up
to 130 hours (5.4 days), and plants with raw waste phenol concentrations over 300
mg/1 would comply with detention times up to 413 hours (17.3 days).
Similar assessments for the remaining 18 remanded pollutants were conducted
to determine necessary detention times as a function of reported or modeled raw
waste concentrations. Table III-8 presents the analysis of this assessment. The
largest detention time required by any OCPSF plant to control one or more of
these pollutants was determined to be 72 hours. However, an 84 hour or 3.5 day
detention time was used to estimate conservative compliance costs for all -n-
phenol-bearing wastestreams containing only the remaining 18 remanded pollut j.
Raw waste concentrations for phenol and the remaining 18 rema..aed
pollutants were then obtained for each BAT Subpart J and PSES plants from the
plant-by-plant pollutant loading estimates described in Chapter VIII of the 1987
Development Document.
Based on the analyses described above, a detention time then was assigned
to each BAT Subpart J and PSES plant for purposes of estimating the revised cost
of compliance for the remanded pollutants. As a result of these assessments
BAT Subpart J and 100 PSES plants were assigned 84 hour detention times,
Subpart J and 77 PSES plants were assigned 130 hours detention time, and 4 BAT
Subpart J and 65 PSES plants were assigned'a 413 hour detention tisa. Tha
detention times assign for each BAT Subpart J and PSES plants are shown in Table
III-9.
The Agency then developed cost estimates based on the new detention times
using the same methodologies as those used at promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp.
VIII-40 to 44, VII-187 to 196). All costs estimates were generated using the
CAPDET design program and are presented in Table 111-10. The cost curves
presented in Figures I to XII are based on the CAPDET generated data shown in
Table III-10.
111-13
-------
g
e
o
:i
i H
0
a
•
g
in
n
s*
V
e a
5 w
- e
U u
S"
? C
b «l
1 1
-i
e a.
3
-i C
'e 2
M U
• b
• C
b «
£
•
,•4
Ou
Pollutant Hoo.
N
0 t
• o
b a
•2 S
i g
w w
« «
•4
O •
IX >
IM «
^
V
u
aS
U 0
o
o
si
O rt
CM «
•4 <=
1
(Accn«phth«n«)
N
0 b
2 |
I g
S S
5 ! i
•4
a u
o v
m >
(S < *
00°
o> o> «
e « a>
O
a "
b • (B b •
« 5 N e ^ o
*
do* o
sSSSIsss
SOOO-i-IMOl
01 c*
e ix
M •»
« o>
66
(Bli|2-Ethylh««yl]
phthnlat*)
b b
II
gg
•4 *4
W *i
* •
•4 -4
b b
n
3 «
0 °
IN «
O CM
»
168
(Dl-n-Butylphth«l«te)
b b
• •
g g
w w
• «
U U
<*4
§i
— 9
ix e
e "
si
176
(Chrysene)
b
O
•S 8-
w b
i!
•4 M
a •
a u
3 -4
a u
a «
IX >
IN IN
IX
gs
O
S *•
e «
e
-------
S!
•.I ••
«j
2.
§
- 2.
I!
13
ilsi
i to .4 1
« *- >
Sm «4
^ m
-------
TABU If 1-9 ,
PL*MI-iTf-nJUn OmBTIOB TDflt ASSXOMBT
A.
413 HOURS
I.
10
33
49
32
79
93
120
1*3
163
199
203
266
283
292
297
302
321
430
438
468
494
624
717
722
743
749
771
830
887
929
944
958
976
992
1006
1047
1032
1083
1086
109*
1194
1195
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1237
1249
1277
1310
1314
1326
1507
1539
1575
1595
1628
1706
17*0
1742
1743
1751
1788
1803
1826
1832
1891
190*
1936
1971
1974
200*
2018
2070
208*
2093
2232
2311
2341
23*8
2359
2442
2469
2495
2S17
2539
263*
2635
26*1
2666
2736
2756
2796
401*
4022
4032
404* •
4050
.»•— — •••—«=— •— —
' 130 HOURS
51 '
72
9*
110
1*9
161
196
212
21*
221
2*9
262
293
326
334
35*
433
522
567
607
658
661
768
797
81*
862
90S
1057
1083
1091
1126
1181
1191
1236
1264
1313 27*1
1352 *001
1356 *006
1357 *026
1361 *070
1*26 *072
1*78
1560
1608
1622
1637
1639
1666
171«
17**
1793
1876
189*
2007
2037 :
2117
2129
2191
22*3
2230
2259
2261
2288
2318
2330
2*65
2*87
232*
25*8
2365
2677
413 HOURS
22
119
122
206
220
240
237
310
458
*92
5*3
392
702
706
Ilk
791
975
9{!7
9517
1CI53
1J.17
1163
13.72
13.73
1J.97
Iit02
i:i20
i:i22
i:isi
I'i32
l'V37
1'iSO
i;i04
1:528
1334
HS45
1667
176*
1773
1833
1853
1899
1931
1993
2176
218*
2241
2293
2300
2459
248S
2498
2501
2646
2714
2748
2776
2793
4003
4007
4008
4024
4027
4047
4057
111-16
-------
TABU 111-10
REVISED CAPITAL AND O&M COST FOR
I5-PLAHT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
SMALL FACILITIES: FLOW < 0.5 MOD
FLOW (MOD)
0.001
0.003
0.01
0.03
0.1
0.3
td • 8* hours •
CAPITAL COST
($)
36,102
72.640
93,471
193,336
261,94*
SSI, 049
0(M COST
(S/YEAR)
33,207
33,13*
34,021
34,933
35,524
49,322
td • 130 hour*
CAPITAL COST
(«>
44,601
•7,942
114,023
233,06*
324,073
733.979
O&M COST
(S/YEAR)
33,39*
34,238
34,477
33,340
36,245
30,239
td « 413 hours
CAPITAL COST
-------
rn-18
-------
~O ~~~
2861) 3300 IgJTd»o \— 1*301
111-19
-------
111-20
-------
111-21
-------
Z86I) -
3soo
-W-
0
o
t"
a
111-22
-------
111-23
-------
o
ft
. ... . . .. V_..—
2861)
111-24
-------
V —
111-25
-------
111-26
-------
111-27
-------
111-28
-------
O f>
U u —i
as > -
•H CO £-
S
-.AE ":".r- : • ^nr" —-—•
\
,. \ _ ' ... _..,
— - — . . —\T ,
Z86T)
H 9 0
111-29
-------
The Agency then estimated the costs associated with the revised inplant:
biological treatment for all the BAT and PSES that were affected by the nev
detention time assignment as stated ;4n:the previous section. The revised in-
plant biological cost estimates for these plants versus the in-plant biological
cost estimates for the 1987 promulgation.are presented in Appendix III-A. The
plant-by-plant revised BAT and PSES cost estimates which include the steaa
stripping and chemical precipitation upgrades, the technology and flow
corrections, as well as the new in-plant biological treatment costs based on the
new detention times, and the corresponding technology basis eo.t.d for each plant
are presented in Appendix III-B. It should be noted that, the cost estimates
presented in Appendices A and B are based on 1982 dollars.
•
3. Land Availability
The Agency also investigated the effect of higher detention times on the
land requirements for estimating the land costs associated with the revised model
in-plant biological treatment systems. Land requirements for small facilities
(flow ,0 5 mgd) and costs were estimated applying the same methodologies used at
promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIII-35 to 56 and VIII-1E7 t:o 196).
For the large facilities (flow * 0.501 mgd) the land requirement calculated
applying the same methodologies used at promulgation were considered excessively
high (104 acres for a 5.0 mgd flow).
An alternative way for estimating land requirement for large plants was
considered. A search of the literature* revealed that modem design of aeration
tanks requires that the width of the tank be at least 1.3 times its depth and
widths as great as 2.15 times the depth have been successfully used. The length
of the aeration tanks although not critical are generally 8 to 18 times their
widths. Furthermore, for tanks using diffusers, greater widths are permissible.
I
pg.129-134)
111-30
-------
Most diffused-air aeration tanks in the United States have liquor depths of about
15 feet, but it appears that there probably is not much difference in power
requirements per million gallons per day of wastewater treated over a practical
range in depths. In addition, it has been shown that the transfer efficiency
increases with diffuser depth because of increased oxygen partial pressure and
increased contact time between the bubble and mixed liquor. Selection of the
most economical depth for aeration design must then take into consideration
available area, land cost and the difficulty and cost of construction. The most
economical depth, especially for large facilities, may be considerably more than
15 feet.
Based on this information, land requirements for large in-plant biological
treatment systems were calculated based on 20 feet deep by 45 feet wide diffused
aeration tanks. The revised in-plant biological treatment land requirements are
presented in Table III-ll. From all of the plants with cost estimates based on
modeled raw waste concentrations and the revised, higher-detention-time, only 20
facilities were projected to require more than one acre of land. The Agency then
estimated revised land cost estimates based on the increased detention time.
Appendix III-A presents the revised in-plant biological land cost estimates.
To assess the availability of land, the Agency visited eight indirect
discharge OCPSF plants with the largest projected land requirements (1.25 to 8.77
acres based on modeled raw waste concentrations) in the New Jersey, New York, and
Delaware area. Indirect discharge facilities were selected because their general
location in urban areas makes them more likely than direct dischargers to have
land-availability constraints. This effort indicated that five of the eight
plants had sufficient land to install the model biological treatment system on-
site. The remaining three plants had from 78 to 96 percent of the projected land
requirements based on modeled raw waste concentrations. However, sufficient land
is available based on land projections developed from designs based on reported
rather than modeled raw waste concentrations. The available land for these three
plants is 1.9 to 3.7 times more than that required for treatment systems designed
from reported pollutant concentrations. One plant suggested that its land may
111-31
-------
TABLE III-11
REVISED LAND REQUIREMENT ESTIMATES FOR
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
^—-
REVISED LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
A. Small taciiiitt
^
FLOW (MGD)
— — — — — —— — —
0.001
0.005
0.010
0.050
0.10
0.5
B. Large Faciliti
^ ^ i^— ^— i^—— «
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
td - 24 hours*
Land Requirement
in Acres
0.075
0.075
0.100
0.200
0.275
0.350
1
es: Flow 2 0.501 M(
2.2
2.8
4.1
5.3
7.7
10.1
12.5
td - 130 hours*
Land Requirement
in Acres
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.250
0.375
1.25
_ — — — — — — — •
3D
3.1
3.9
5.7
7.5
10.9
14.4
17.9
. — ____— ^-i
td - 143 hours* |
Land Requirement |
in Acres |
0.075 I
0.150 1
0.200 1
0.500 1
0.850 |
3.25 5
8 ,9 J
11.7
17 . 3
22.9
34.2
45.1'
5(5.2 . U
td - detention time
111-32
-------
not be suitable for construction because of possible hazardous waste
contamination. A summary of the results from the site visits is presented in
Table III-12.
Based on this assessment, the Agency concludes that land availability is
not a constraint for installing the model treatment technology and, generally,
would not provide a basis for requests for alternative limitations and standards
based on fundamentally different factors (see 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart D and 40
CFR 403.13).
4. Proposed Regulatory Amendments
In each of §§ 40 CFR 414.25, 414.35, 414.45, 414.55, 414.65, 414.75, and
414.85, the table for pretreatment standards is proposed to be amended by adding
the names and limitations for the following 13 pollutants:
Pretreatment Standards
Effluent Characteristics
Acenaphthene
2 , 4 - D ime thy Ipheno 1
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
(micrograms
Maximum for
any one day
47
47
54
47
47
258
43
113
47
47
47
47
48
per liter)
Maximum for
monthly average
19
19
22
19
19
95
20
46
19
19
19
19
20
In 40 CFR § 414.101, the table for BAT Subpart J limitations is proposed
to be amended by adding the names and limitations for the following 19
pollutants:
111-33
-------
BAT Effluent Limitations and NSPS
(microgramis per liter)
Effluent Characteristics
Acenaphthalene
2 , 4 - D ime thy Ipheno 1
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Deimethyl phthalate
Benzo ( a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Maximum for
any one day
• 47
* ^
47
54
47
1, 7
4/
258
/ ^
43
i ^
47
47
48
/ O
48
47
A 7
1+ /
f ^
47
/ T
47
47
47
A a
•»O
Maximum for
monthly average
19
1 Q
17
00
a
1 rt
19
19
i *
Q C
95
on
i«j
A £
*»O
1 Q
X 7
1 Q
L7
o n
2U
on
i-U
i rt
19
19
1 Q
L7
1 Q
17
1 /•«
19
10
19
20
111-34
-------
TABLE 111-12
LAND AVAILABILITY OF SELECTED OCPSF PLANTS
PLANT NO.
257
2756
1853
2300
1706
1667
2485
814
LOCATION
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
Delaware
Delaware
New Jersey
New Jersey
New York
ESTIMATED
LAND REQUIREMENT
REVISED IN -PLANT
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
1.93/(0.55)*
1.61
8.77/(2.16)*
1.93
1.8
1.25/(0.38)*
6.64
2.19
LAND AVAILABLE
(ACRES)
1.5
5
8
11
5.2
1.2
>20
13
* ( ) land requirement calculated based on reported raw waste
concentrations.
111-35
-------
IV. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS'.AMD PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEV SOURCES
A. INTRODUCTION '
The Agency promulgated NSPS standards that reflected the use of best
available demonstrated technology for all direct discharging; sources. NSPS was
established for conventional pollutants-(BOD5, TSS, and pH) on the basis of BPT
model treatment technology and for 63 priority pollutants on the basis of BAT
model treatment technology. The numerical standards are equivalent to the BPT
and the BAT limitations (52 FR 42545). EPA also promulgated PSNS on the same
technology basis as PSES and issued equivalent numerical standards for 47
priority pollutants that were determined to pass through or |Otherwise interfere
with the operation of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (52 FR 42549).
NRDC challenged the final NSPS and PSNS new source standards arguing, in
part, that the Agency failed to give serious consideration to better pollution
control technologies that could be used by new sources. HBOC claimed that the
Agency ignored its own data which demonstrated that 26 percent of the OCPSF
industry are zero or alternative discharge plants due to disposal methods such
as deep well injection, contract hauling, incineration, evaporation ponds,
surface impoundments, land application, and recycling of process wastewater.
NRDC stated that "not all of the methods used to achieve zero discharge to
c,.rfaee waters are necessarily environmentally acceptable. However, the record
indicates that 36 slants achieve zero discharge by recycling; their wastestreams.
1987 Dev. Doc. at VII-146." (NRDC's June 30, 1988 Brief pp. 86-89 (emphasis in
original)). i
On March 3o", 1989, the Fifth Circuit rejected all but one of NRDC's new
source challenges and remanded the new source standards to EPA "for consideration
of whether zero discharge limits would be appropriate for new plants in the OCPSF
industry because of the existence of recycling" (870 F.2d at 264).
•
The Agency has reconsidered the issues related to establishing new source
zero discharge standards based on process wastewater recycle and has decided to
propose that no revisions be made to existing NSPS and PSNS standards. The
Agency has concluded that it has no basis and that it would be impracticable to
IV-1
-------
impose a zero discharge standard on a meaningful segment of the industry. First,
the "concentration-based" approach which forms the framework of the OCPSF
guideline limits the opportunities for the promotion of recycling and re-use of
wastewater through a national guideline, in contrast to the "mass-based" approach
adopted in other guidelines. The Agency explicitly recognized this limitation
during the guideline development process, but opted for this approach nonetheless
because it provided the basis for a.guideline with more expansive coverage. This
was a rational regulatory decision made by the Agency. Moreover, because the
OCPSF record was imprecise with regard to its use of the term "recycle", both
NRDC and the Fifth Circuit in its remand order misinterpreted the support in the
database for zero discharge through recycling. In fact, the record contains very
few examples of complete recycle and does not demonstrate that recycle is a
demonstrated technology on which EPA can base a zero discharge standard.
B. BACKGROUND
At the time of the 1983 proposal, the Agency provided notice of the
rationale for developing effluent limitations and standards in terms of
concentration (mg/1) rather than mass (Ibs of pollutant/unit of production). The
Agency concluded that the benefits of selecting the concentration-based
regulatory approach -- coverage of a larger number of OCPSF plants and a larger
proportion of individual plants' production -•• outweighed the costs, including
the diminished opportunity, through the national OCPSF guideline, to promote the
"recycling and reuse of wastewater and by-products" (48 FR 11838). Under the
selected concentration-based approach, opportunities for recycle are evaluated
at the plant level by individual permit writers, rather than at the national
level through guideline limitations.
The selected concentration-based approach established limitations generally
from end-of-pipe data that reflected total treatment system performance. The
Agency described its preference for mass limitations (Ibs of pollutant/unit of
production), where feasible, to encourage flow reduction and to prevent the
substitution of dilution for treatment. However, concentration-based limitations
are used where production and achievable wastewater flow cannot be correlated.
In the OCPSF industry, such correlations do not exist, and EPA proposed, for the
reasons summarized below, concentration-based limitations (48 FR 11834).
IV-2
-------
In the OCPSF industry, production often varies from day to day or even hour
to hour. This is particularly true in-large integrated plants producing a large
variety of products as well as plants employing batch processing. Wastewater
regulatory problems associated with these production characteristics could only
be mitigated if mass-based-limits could be set on individual process lines prior
to end-of-pipe biological treatment, with credit given for[percent reductions
across the biological system. Such . an approach would have required the
development of separate mass limitations for each of hundreds or thousands of
product/process discharges. The Agency would have had to determine what mass
limitations could be achieved for each product/process through the use of in-
plant control. Each product/process would have been considered a separate
subcategory, and the regulation would have contained separate mass-based
limitations for each such subcategory. Monitoring would have been separately
required for each product/process effluent. However, credit could have been
provided for removals by an end-of-pipe (usually biological) treatment system if
sampling before and after that system demonstrated a percent reduction through
the biological segment of the system. , ,
I
- I '
While pursuing this goal between 1976 and 1981, the Agency examined the
nature and treatability of 176 individual high-volume product/process wastewater
effluents. EPA sampled the raw waste load of individual production lines,
determined the rate of production, and sampled the discharge from in-plant
physical/chemical treatment systems used to treat those product/process effluents
either singly or in combination with other product/process effluents. The mass-
based regulatory option, if supported by sufficient technical information, would
have provided some potential advantages over an end-of-pipe, concentration-based
regulation including an emphasis on process controls and in-plant physical/
chemical treatment, thereby promoting the recycling and reuse of wastewater and
by-products (48 FR 11838).
Despite the theoretical advantages, the Agency concluded that the mas.s-
based option was both technically and administratively infeasible. Even though
EPA could have regulated 176 of the high-volume products out of thousands of
commercial product/processes, control authorities would typically have been faced
with the arduous task of characterizing and developing effluent limitations for
those product/processes at each plant that were not explicitly addressed by the
IV-3
-------
regulation. Monitoring for compliance with individual product/process
limitations would have been enormously expensive.
One of the most significant technical difficulties related to establishing
mass-based standards was determination of an appropriate flow to production
volume ratio (F/P) for each product/process representative of good industry
practice. (Multiplying F/P by concentration yields a. mass of pollutant loading
per unit of production.) Out of the 176 product/processes sampled, EPA had 27
product/processes with F/P data from more than one plant. The data show that
wide variations in F/P ratios often occur -- 14 of the 27 product/process flow
to production ratios vary by factors of 5 to 74 (1983 Public Record R701249-65).
To establish F/P ratios, EPA would practically have had to establish design and
operating practices for each product/process. As EPA concluded at the time, this
was far beyond the reasonable scope of the BAT project (48 FR 11838).
Therefore, the Agency concluded that the benefits of selecting the
concentration-based regulatory approach -- coverage of a larger number of OCPSF
plants and a larger proportion of individual plants' production -- outweighed the
costs, including the diminished opportunity, through the national OCPSF
guideline, to promote the recycling and reuse, of wastewater and by-products (48
FR 11838). Promotion of recycle and reuse through the guideline would be limited
because, as explained in the next section, it would require the same attempt to
regulate on a product/process -by-product/process basis that the Agency determined
to be impracticable, and rejected, as the basis for the guidelines.
The adoption of a concentration-based approach, however, did not mean that
recycling and reuse of wastewater would not be promoted at individual plants.
Rather, the guideline is structured so that recycling and reuse evaluations will
be made on a facility-specific basis by the permit writer or control authority,
rather than through the national guideline. The permit writer or control
authority must use a reasonable estimate of plant process wastewater flow and the
concentration limitations to develop appropriate mass limitations for each NPDES
or industrial user permit. In cases where the process wastewater flow claimed
by a plant may be excessive, the permit writer or control authority may develop
a more appropriate process wastewater flow for use in computing the mass effluent
or internal plant limitations. The site-specific factors that should be
IV-4
-------
considered by the permit or control authority in developing, appropriate process
wastewater flow include a review of plant operations Co. ensure that sound water
conservation practices are being followed. Examples are: minimization of
process water uses; cascading or countercurrent washes or rinses, where possible;
reuse or recycle of intermediate process waters or treated wastewaters at the
process area and in wastewater treatment operations (48 FR 11839, March 21, 1983;
52 FR 42566, November 5, 1987). Guidance issued by the EPA to control
authorities notes that OCPSF "permit writers should use flow reduction as a basis
for establishing mass limits in permits where appropriate" (February 8, 1988
Memorandum from EPA's Director, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits to
Regional Water Management Division Directors and NPDES State Directors).
EPA believes that it was within the Agency's regulatory discretion to
evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the concentration-based and mass-
based approaches and to opt for the greater coverage made possible by the former
approach', thereby minimizing the opportunity to promote recycling through the
national guideline and relying on the control authorities to exploit
opportunities for recycle and reuse of wastewater.
For the reasons outlined above, during the course of ,the OCPSF rulemaking
i
activity (1976 to 1987), EPA never proposed to base NSPS on recycling options and
never received any comments urging Agency consideration of zero or alternative
discharge methods as a basis for promulgating NSPS (EPA's 9-X3-88 Response Brief,
p. 401).
C.
FACTORS AFFECTING COMPLETE RECYCLE OF PROCESS WASTEVATER
Recycle of process and non-process wastewater is an important consideration
and often an integral element of a plant's waste management '(materials recovery)
and water conservation program. Nearly all OCPSF facilities currently use some
recycle and reuse techniques. However, recycle techniques alone, while reducing
the total volume of wastewater discharged, seldom achieve the goal of zero
discharge of process wastewater. Many problems associated with complete recycle
and reuse of wastewater must be solved before it can be demonstrated to be a
practical application in most OCPSF manufacturing plants. .("Complete Water Reuse
IV-5
-------
-- Industry's Opportunity," AICHE/EPA Technology Transfer National Conference,
1973, pp. 2 & 303)
By their nature, successful OCPSF recycle techniques would tend to be
limited to specific product/processes or to specific wastestreams within
product/processes. Recycle techniques are not generalized technologies which can
be applied over broad categories of dischargers. Even if the record provided a
basis to believe that zero discharge of wastewater could be achieved for a
significant number of the 25,000 product/processes in the OCFSF industry (and,
as explained in the next section, it does not), the development of a technology
basis would require precisely the same exercise in establishing design and
operating practices for each affected product/process that EPA considered and
rejected in 1983. NRDC's basic challenge to the promulgated new source standards
amounts to a challenge to the Agency's decision in proposing the OCPSF guideline
to adopt a concentration-based approach.
Plant-level process wastewater recycle techniques may be segmented into
several broad categories -- general water conservation practices, reuse of end-
of-pipe or combined process wastewater within a particular product/process, and
recycle of product/process wastewater within the same product/process. Each of
these options provides very limited theoretical opportunity for achieving the
goal of zero discharge of process wastewater.
A significant component of water conservation generally includes treatment
or process unit operation changes from an "open," single pass to a "closed,"
recycle system. In typical cases such as chemical process equipment vent or air
scrubbers and pump seal systems as well as contact and non-contact cooling
systems, many facilities recycle the scrubber, seal, or cooling wastewater to
reduce the consumption of water as well as the discharge of wastewater. However,
recycle of the wastewater leads to higher dissolved solids, particulate, and
soluble pollutant concentrations which reduce the efficiency of the unit
operation. To maintain optimal operation and performance, a portion of the
closed system concentrated wastewater is periodically discharged as blowdown and
replaced by clean water. The process wastewater blowdown generally requires
treatment prior to discharge or disposal (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. V-24 to 29; 1990
Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering. Robert A. Corbitt, pp. 4.26-4.35
IV-6
-------
& 4.49-4.52). Thus, recycle of scrubber,, seal, or cooling wa.stewater does not
eliminate discharge of process wastewater.»
• I
Recycle techniques related to the reuse of combined process wastewater are
limited by the capacity of specific process or reaction chemistry to tolerate
chemical contaminants and, even if they were demonstrated to be achievable for
individual product/processes, could be promulgated only through zero discharge
limitations for those specific product/processes. They are limited by the
ability to establish design and operating parameters for botzh the individual
product/processes and the accessory treatment systems necessary to reclaim
wastewater of sufficient purity for recycle or reuse in the chemical processes.
A large portion of OCPSF process wastewater is derived front product and by-
product separation unit operations. The combined plant wastewater typically
contains pollutants that prevent reuse or recycle within particular chemical
processes. Chemical processes almost never convert 100 percent of the feedstocks
to the desired products; that is, the chemical reactions/processes never proceed
to total completion; moreover, undesirable by-products are often unavoidably
generated due to alternate reaction pathways and raw material contamination.
This results in mixtures of unreacted raw materials and products that must be
separated and recovered by unit operations that are not 100 percent efficient
(1987 Dev. Doc. pp. V-49-50). Finally, like chemical processses, wastewater
treatment/recondi-tioning processes are almost never 100 percent efficient.
Therefore, most trace contaminants in untreated or treated, recycled/reused
process wastewater are undesirable because they foul catalysts', lead to the
formation of undesirable waste products, and could result i.n a net increase in
pollution ("Complete Water Reuse -- Industry's Opportunity," pp 297-303).
Therefore, maximizing the probability of developing successful recycle techniques
i-
(i.e., minimizing potential chemical process contaminants) requires recycling
wastewater within a specific product/process rather than revising the wastewater
from one product/process or a group of product/processes as makeup or raw
material for another product/process.
Individual product/processes differ in feasibility of internally recycling
their respective process wastewaters. Total recycle or reuse of process
wastewater from chemical reactions is theoretically possible for only a few
product/processes. Unless a plant operates a combination of these unique
" IV-7 ' : !' - ' ' .
-------
product/processes for which total recycle is practicable, however, the plant will
be capable of recycling only a portion of its process wastewater.
In certain instances, it may be possible to recycle wastewater to process
feed. Recovered wastewater being recycled to process feed may have to be
pretreated (i.e., vacuum stripped of water to raise the concentration of soluble
reactants to a level required by the process and/or treated to remove undesirable
trace contaminants). As already noted recycling to process feed is not feasible
for many product/processes, because the process chemistry will not tolerate even
low concentrations of contaminants. Contaminants often affect the reaction rate,
reduce process efficiency, produce undesirable side reactants, or make product
recovery and purification uneconomical. For such product/processes to avoid
discharge, the volume of contaminated wastewater must be accommodated by on-site
reuse/disposal techniques or other discharge alternajtives.
Thus, there are numerous theoretical and p^acticle^imitations to achieving
zero discharge through recycle. As the next (sect^demonstrates, the OCPSF
record reflects that few, if any, plants actually achieve zero discharge through
recycle.
D. ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF RECYCLE TECHNIQUES BY OCPSF FACILITIES
As stated in the above sections, the fifth, circuit remanded the NSPS and
PSNS standards on the basis of NRDC's assertations that.the OCPSF ru. .aking
record contains 36 plants which achieve zero discharge through the recyc..ng of
their wastestreams. To assess the litigation issues raised by NRDC, the Agency
conducted a thorough review of the OCPSF Record with respect to zero discharge
and recycling practices at OCPSF facilities. During this review, analyses were
conducted on the use of recycle techniques by OCPSF facilities. The following
sections present the results of these analyses.
1. Identification of Complete Recycle Plants and Product/Processes
During the OCPSF rulemaking effort, the Agency studied a variety of water
conservation and reuse practices including recycle technique* among primary OCPSF
producers that discharged process wastewater (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. V-23 to V-29).
Since this analysis excluded zero and alternate discharge plants which may be
IV-8
.
-------
achieving zero discharge through recycling, the Agency reexamined the reported
use of recycle techniques among zero and alternate discharge as well as direct
and indirect discharge OCPSF facilities. •
A review of the 234 zero or alternate discharge plants was first conducted;
the Agency produced a listing of plants and their disposal methods from Question
A.lS.d of the Section 308 Questionnaire. Question A. 15.d li«ts specific disposal
options for reporting purposes; since no specific disposal option for recycling
was listed in Question A.lS.d, the disposal methods listed under "Other-Type I"
and "Other-Type 2" designations were reviewed. This review revealed that nine
OCPSF plants reported complete recycling to dispose of all process wastewater
generated at their facilities to achieve zero discharge while an additional two
plants reported a combination of recycle and other disposal methods to achieve
zero discharge of process wastewater. These plants are identified in Table IV-1.
All the plants in Table IV-1 answered only Part A of the 308 .Questionnaire, and
hence no product/process specific information was available! for further review.
However, as described in Section D below, the Agency used phe SRI Directory of
I
Chemical Producers to identify candidate products that i could achieve zero
discharge of process wastewater through the use of recycle techniques.
2. Identification of Partial Recycle Plants and Product/Processes
NRDC misread the OCSPF record in asserting "that 36 plants achieve zero
discharge by recycling their wastestreams" because the Agency's 1987 development
document (Table VII-48 on p. VII-146) did not comprehensively d«scribe the source
of the "Frequency of Waste Stream Final Discharge and Disposal Techniques"
tabulation. The development document omitted the clear statement that the Table
VII-48 tabulation.characterizes the multiple disposal and discharge practices
only for 697 direct and indirect discharge plants. Therefore!, the table actually
reports that 36 direct and indirect discharge plants use recycle techniques for
only a portion of their wastestreams.. All of these 36 plants discharge
wastewater. ; '
Moreover, as detailed below, these 36 wastestreams included non-aqueous
product recovery wastestreams in addition to process wastewater streams, and the
wastewater streams often include only a portion of the discharges from an
individual product/process. EPA's remand analysis found thait only three of the
IV-9 ;
-------
TABLE IV-1
9 PLANTS THAT REPORT COMPUTE RECYCLING OF THEIR ffASTEVATER*
53
344
489
968'
1385
1909
2143
2540
2583
2 PLANTS THAT REPORT PARTIAL RECYCLING*
1491
2656
All these plants are Part A plants
IV-10
-------
697 plants in the OCPSF database that discharge process vastewater reported
complete recycle of process wastewater generated by a total of six product/
i
processes.
The 308 Questionnaire Database, was used to identify all the plants which
used the "Recycle" Disposal Code (H10). A 308 Questionnaire search was conducted
on each of these plants to obtain the following information:
• The product/process wastestream(s) recycled
• The total number of process/non-process wastestreams generated by that
product/process
• Fate of each wastestream along with its type (aqueous, non-aqueous,
product recovery, or washdowns, etc.) |
• The ratio of flow recycled to the total product/process flow.
The results of this search are presented in Table IV-2. There are 34 OCPSF
plants (Plant Numbers 101 and 1936 were excluded from tho earlier list of 36
plants, as there was no recycling activity found at these plants) employing
recycle/reuse techniques on at least some fraction of their process wastewaters.
Of these plants, only 3 plants reported complete recycling of process wastewater
generated by a total of 6 product/processes. The remaining plants reported
partial recycling or partial reuse (only a portion of the vastestreams from a
product/process) for 65 product/processes. Of these 65 product/processes, 51
have been completely identified and explained as shown in Table IV-2. The
reported information on the remaining 14 product/processes was incomplete and
. i
could not be utilized. !
3. Analysis of Extent of Raw Material and Product Recovery at Complete and
Partial Recycle Plants by Product/Process !
In the process of identifying the OCPSF facilities practicing recycle
techniques, the Agency studied the nature of the reported wastestream recycled.
Even though the recycling of a wastestream is process specific, a general pattern
may emerge from a large number of examples.
For the product/processes where only part of the
recycled, a pattern can be seen from Table IV-2.
IV.-11
process
wastestreams is
-------
•«
!
uj 5
-
I I
8
S IM
« >•
«
t s.
£ 5
* •
. —
«- «• z s s M g.
i i i * " «
2 " E »8 S£>
T t r I 5 = -g
X f o
5- : -
I
4E ^ V V
x x S S fe
— — «• a «•
8
.
H «
s
- s • *
< i 7 I
•o £ 5
* • «
s II
ff
i Si
S 7
I -
1 y
* i - - K
Sly o 5
. 2 1 - -a
5 S S. £ I
I * -
fr * -
* £
= 22
5 3
uj i/t
m u>
S 5!
«| V «l «l
I f 1 I
u u u u
i 2
I
I
I
i i
I I
I I
e x - s
s s :
s 5 I
•§ § — Kl
~ *
s
s z
? | 2 s
I I 1 •
s £ * ~
• £ t r
o » -B g
I i 1 *
s 2 2 a
i
IV-12
-------
ft
§
S
i
u
UJ
ac
i
"*
g
*
u
oc
«
I «
'Q»
5
£
a
i
UJ
ac
VI
UJ
VI
o
UJ
u
i
OESCRIP1
FAIE OF EACH PROCESS UASTE STREAM***
(from 108 Questionnaire)
« -
: s 1
S S a '
§' u 2
u
s * 2
2 i S
% u
S « IA
I/I IM V>
o 8 8
* «. CL
8
u.
VI
tf|
I
s i
IsV VI
^ am
»*• O
i
I
L.
*J
All are non- aqueous stream. 2 are recycled afi
product separation and the remaining 2
are incinerated.
All are aq. stream, one goes through filtra-
tion and recycling. Ihe remining I stream
are uashdowns. and are sent to POIU.
Both arc n»-anueou« stream. One is recycled
after the raw mterlal recovery end the
other one Is sent to POIU.
One streas) is storswater (aq.)and is recycled;
other ont is process aq. Maste stream, and It.
sent to POIU.
After distillation the only aq. stream
produced Is recycled.
5
u
9
Croup of non-aqueous stream; part of it
recycled, and the remaining arc sent to
Incineration. (exact * of streams not clear)
All are aq. streams; only contact cooling Matei
recycled and the remaining 7 go through
biological treatment, and are directly dischar
f ' t
« *-. •» M
After product separation. 2 streams are generi
oncinen-aq.i i» fccycica and the other is iaq.
sent to POIU.
After product separation, 2 stream are generi
one (non-aq.) is recycled and the other(aq.) 1
sent to POIU.
S * 1A
s 5 °
• • a
5 * S
S 5 I
o o c
^
A *
A 4)
I 1
e o o e u
3 ^
C -o
3 S
e • —
,» -» fit «W — «I «. •
Is.
0
e
S
O O ** MM
Ii 1 I i I
• s s:
i ? I
• II * i • i
55 g j
u « — *
» S - ?
ill i
n J !
11 -I !
* * 2 - •>. " -
- - S a • -r o
55 | «* 1 &
£ 2 2 u
o-o «• -
>
• •• o
•s »
IV- 13
S 8
«to Up *
1 1
S S
1 1
i 1
• A
o
•o e
•^ o
5 !>
i s
o o
f^t ^
o
fM
fM
8
'm
Si o
1 • i
1
1 s
1 1
4i U
i 1
VI <
• ™
-------
3 t
ii
» §
•t. m
I I
I ill
** 9
«» 3 M «#
-* U U
I Hi
15
« 9
if
5 S
7 -o .
** c —•
r
w *• * 3.
r r • r 8- *
ii kl
7 •
•a i
** **
i i
:i t :i-
— k ,C — W t
S 5 •-
a ~ -a
s : ^2
i f Z £
S o i!
k 5. ~
I 2 J:
2 S «
-s =
^.00
i !
^ i
b> U —
«1 S. —
£ 2 §
1
If
Ii
U O W K
Ul < Ik A.
f
I
S
^i
U* V?
ii
I
Sc
8
2 «
w
1
n
3
S.-
IV-14
-------
in
|
S
i
vt
O
u
ae
§
i
u
«
0
IM S
> 5
• 8
h- lat
|
«
VI
n
ED UASIESt
S
Ul
8
I
FATE OF EACH PROCESS UASTE SIDEAM***
(From 308 Questionnaire)
« -
. i 1
*. z. z
32,
1 S i
8 « |
S £ 2
i
s i v> *
Ul
S 5 8
» 2 £
Ul
§
1
I
3
5 i
S! S
5 S
i
|
One non aq. stream from product separation Is
recycled; the remaining 2 (aq. streams)
are directly discharged.
1*1
§
o
0
a
I
a.
o
I
After product separation, 2 non-aq. streams fro
different processes are recycled, the remalnlni
one Is washdown/cool Ing water (aq.), and is
sent to POTU after treatment.
1
I 0
K1
'
1
1
? i
S -5
O (V
ijl
1 l!
B "•
2 S
All process wasteuater strea»s(2) go through
chemical precipitation, and then, one atream
(aq.) Is recycled and the remaining one(aq:>
Is directly dischsrged after Ill-s'tage
f^
••
•
~
V
"x
i
i>
Is
€ Q
: 1
s. 5
s
biological treatment.
One non-aq. stream is recycled; the remaining
1 (aq.) along with wethdown/cooi Ing
waters(aq.) are sent to POTU.
e
§
o
in
8
O
It
8
U
|
i
=
a
IV-15
l total of 6 aq. streams
[2 out of 3 each from 3 different processes)
ire contact cooling/floor wash waters, and are
•ecycled; remaining 3 (aq.) are contract haulet
^
S
1
o
01
^
S
o
s
tn
-
S 6 3
° .£ S
v 2
~» «
S £ S
i * *-
t!i
n
Ul are aqueous streams mixed with AS, A9,
io, S3; goea through precipitation, stream
(tripping, sol. extraction, and then, part of
this Is recycled and the remaining are dlrectl'
discharged (exact * of streams not clear).
(
'
J
?
O
i
o
o
? i
s | .
Mi»i
— .2 o - •
i i £ I ?
x.
O
.*
-
mergency Neutri
oiler bloudoun]
imp seal water]
III
-------
1
I
r 5
ii
||S
!l:
1
i is
5 s - i
• £• V V • ^ *"
•~ ~ C -~ £ ** C «* «*
•i H si
I
81
i si:
U «( «. O
i IS11
»-e- UC2 S!
- « c B • » - 8
s.! !|f
l*f I r
£ tj £ ri-fs 7'il J ^ >• • I
a o y jt • 'as8- •« = «!
ill IS? 28£f l=ils
I = =
^s s •:
§ « 5 55
-
J0 u • 3
-Sllii
* =
£ 3
= 8
£ U 2
is*
g - "
2 U
3 S S!
S
S
2 * £ «
w> So
DM N. «
iy vi
i
W b
ii
£ t
S S
8
i «r •* •*
** C ry PU
-------
3
i
a
i
i
i
o
UJ
d
u
z
%
i
M
si
§
« s
^ u
o jp
2 §
s !i
UJ < t
%
s
s!
i .
x x a
till
= 2
= . 2
Hi fl; t*
£ <- <• <= »
thr
eMi
f§ 5
t v = •+
end
Iirftf
if* I -12
* * 2 i S I -
5! I H
I£ I f-B§ Sl"|
si— SC'5 •• * « g
«4?9 «*S ""-^J
-88 w
• k u •*;
nn
s il t
-18 «?i
tA ^ ** ** p I
» T 1 ? S I S 5
e Resins {Sul
; i
IV-17
-------
«
**
1
I
«
S
2 1
!!«'i!
O — •* >. o «
• I I t e *
•s : s s - •
X b *«
-------
. There are 23 product/processes in which only the washdowns/floor washes
ft! contact cooling ^ters^ere recycled. (Stormwater is included in
a few cases.)
. There are 13 product/processes in which only the aqueous wastestreams
fromproduct separation and raw material recovery were recycled.
. There are 15 product/processes in which only non-aqueous streams were
recycled.
As a result of the above analysis, the Agency recognizes that, from the
available data on the recycle plants, 29.4% of the product/process wastestreams
being recycled are non-aqueous streams, and would be considered as product and/or
raw material recovery rather than recycle of process wast«wacer.
E. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE PRODUCTS FOR RECYCLE BASED ZEROjDISCHARGE STANDARDS
As described in previous sections, EPA's remand analysis found that only
three of the 697 plants in the OCPSF database that discharge process wastewater
reported complete recycle of process wastewater generat«d by a total of six
product/processes. Of the 234 zero and alternative discharge plants that do not
discharge process wastewater to receiving bodies of water or to publicly owned
treatment works, only 11 facilities reported the use of recycle techniques ~
nine reported recycle of all wastewater and two reported use of recycle in
combination with other alternative disposal techniques. NRDG misread the OCPSF
record in asserting "that 36 plants achieve zero discharge by recycling their
waste streams" because the Agency's 1987 development docuwit (Table VII-48 on
p VII-146) did not comprehensively describe the source of the "Frequency of
Waste Stream Final Discharge and Disposal Techniques" tabulation. The
development document omitted the clear statement that the Table VII-48 tabulation
characterizes the multiple disposal and discharge practices only for 697 direct
and indirect discharge plants. Therefore, the table actually reports that 36
direct and indirect discharge plants use recycle techniques for only a portion
of their waste streams. All of these 36 plants discharge wastewater.
Moreover, these 36 waste streams' included non-aqueous product recovery
waste streams in addition to process wastewater streams, and the wastewater
streams often include only a portion of the discharges from an individual
product/process. Because of the limitations inherent in applying recycling
IV-19 !
-------
techniques beyond the product/processes for which they are demonstrated, the most
the Agency could do with respect to imposing zero discharge limitations would be
to attempt to develop a technical basis to propose a zero discharge NSPS for some
of all of these demonstrated product/process out of 25,000 in the OCPSF industry.
Since neither the Survey responses nor the remainder of the OCPSF record
documents the process design and operating characteristics that permit the use
of total recycle for any product/process, the Agency initiated a study of
candidate products to ascertain the basis for such a proposal.
As already described, for the three direct/indirect discharge ' ~-\ts,
Section 308 survey responses were used to identify the six product/process at
recycled or reused all of the process wastewater (potassium acetate, un
acetate, sodium diacetate, acrylic resin, acrylic latex, and Nylon 6 caprolc.,am
concentration by evaporation). A secondary source - - the SRI International 1982
Directory of Chemical Producers -- was used to identify the product mixes for the
11 zero/alternative discharge plants; the OCPSF record does not include product
mix information for these plants because "zero and alternative discharge" plants
only responded to part of the Agency's 1983 Section 308 survey. The listed
products include formaldehyde and melamine, phenolic, urea, alkyd, epoxy, furan,
polyester, and polyurethane resins. Thus a total of 15 products were identified
as candidate products to study their process chemistry and operating
characteristics that permit the use of total recycle.
Even though at least one plant in the OCPSF data base reported that it
achieves zero discharge by totally recycling all the process wastewater generated
by one or more of these 15 products, the questionnaire did not define "recycle"
or "zero discharge" in the context of total recycle of process wastewater.
Consideration of the process chemistry and operating characteristics of these
product/processes indicates that most of these product/processes could not
achieve zero discharge through wastewater recycle alone. Therefore, even if the
Agency concluded that zero discharge standards based on total recycle of process
wastewater could cover one or more of these product segments of the industry, it
would have to conduct extensive technical and engineering studies to confirm that
total recycle of the selected wastewater streams is practicable. EPA would
practically have to establish design and operating practices for each
IV-20
-------
product/process, which is exactly the approach to regulation which EPA rejected
in developing the OCPSF guideline.
As described below, only three of the 15 products provide reasonable
prospects of achieving zero discharge through total recycle of process -
wastewater.
I
In the case of melamine, phenolic, and urea resin manufacture with or
without captive formaldehyde production as well as 11**, epoxy furan,
polyester, and polyurethane resin manufacture, water is vacuu* stripped fro. the
reactor to optimize the conversion of raw materials to product. In the case of
the melamine, phenolic, and urea resins, the concentration of ::aw materia s.in
water stripped from the process can be raised, through evaporation, to a level
where most, perhaps all, of it can be ^introduced as feed to the process. Some
process-generated wastewater may leave the plant with the product as a syrup.
However, in the case of furan, alkyd, epoxy, and polyester rusins, the water
stripped from the process is not recycled but can be captured and disposed of by
techniques such as evaporation or another alternative discharge technique.
Polyurethane resins are manufactured by what is essentially a dry process,
although there is usually a vent scrubber associated with this product/process.
AS already noted/even though vent scrubbers typically recycle wastewater, they
must periodically discharge a portion of the recycle stream. Therefore, with the
exception of melamine, phenolic, and urea resin manufacture, prospects of
achieving zero discharge through recycle techniques are unlikely because the
furan, alkyd, epoxy, polyester, and polyurethane resin processes generate process
wastewater that is not amenable to complete recycle.
in the case of Nylon 6 resins and'fibers, water and unreacted caprolactam
.onomer may be removed by vacuum stripping from the fiber Aiming process and
may be recycled to the resin process feed. However, this "recycle" or reuse
option would be limited to plants that manufacture both the Hylon 6 resin as well
as the fiber. Nevertheless, since the Nylon 6 resin process generates and
discharges significant amounts of wastewater, this raw material recovery/recycle
operation, in essence, reuses but then discharges the associated wastewater
(November 1981 Contractor's Engineering Report, Appendix !> pp. S-317 to 366).
IV-21
-------
Therefore, Nylon 6 resin and fiber production are unlikely candidates for zero
discharge standards based on total recycle of process wastewater.
After formation of potassium and sodium acetic acid salts in a reactor the
salts can usually be crystallized from saturated solution and recovered by
filtration. The filtrate can be recycled to the initial neutralization step
The salt may be purified by recrystallization from fresh water and recovered by
filtration. Filtrate from the recrystallization may also be recycled to the
process. As long as the processing equipment remains dedicated to the same
product to avoid cross contamination with salts of other metals, and assuming
water losses by evaporation or drying of the salt crystals, such product/
processes should be operable with no discharge of wastewater. However, plants
typically use the same batch reactor to manufacture multiple products because of
the great variety of products manufactured by plants in the industry and the
impracticability of dedicating a batch reactor to a particular product.
Therefore, these acetic acid salts are also unlikely candidates for complete
recycle of process wastewater.
In the case of acrylic resin/latex production, most of the process
wastewater typically results from washing the polymerization reactor with water
after every batch. Typically containing 1 to 2 percent solids, the wash water
is often treated on-site and discharged. However, some plants are now evaluating
techniques to capture and concentrate the latex solids in the wash water to give
a saleable byproduct. One technique utilizes membrane separation technology
such as ultrafiltration, as a practicable way to separate latex solids from the
wash water. By making multiple passes of the wash water through the
ultrafiltration apparatus, the solids can be concentrated to a level that is
marketable as a lower-grade latex. As long as the equipment is dedicated to
successive batches of the same product, it should be practicable to recycle
permeate as wash water for the reactor. Since the permeate contains soluble
ingredients required in the process, it would also appear practicable to return
permeate to the reactor for use in a new batch of the same latex.
Even if all of the wash water could be recycled, either as permeate or
marketed as a lower-grade latex, the manufacture of a latex would generate some
process wastewater. The reactor must be vented to a scrubber to control the
IV-22
-------
emission of volatile monomers, such as acrylates. The scrubber which typically
uses recycle techniques must periodically discharge process wastewater. Some
process wastewater may also accrue when the reactor is switched to a different
product. While these wastewaters are perhaps unavoidable, th« use of ultra-
filtration would greatly reduce the volume of process wast:ew»ter that would
otherwise have to be treated before discharge or disposal.
v
Thus, the OCPSF record and EPA's analysis support the possibility of
achieving zero discharge through recycle of process wastewat«r for three of the
25,000 OCPSF product/processes. However, the record still does not provide the
basis for EPA to conclude that recycle is a demonstrated technology for these
product/processes. The above analysis suggests a probable explanation of how
recycle is accomplished for these product/processes; the data base does not
reveal what these plants are actually doing. Moreover, EPA is reluctant to
devote the substantial time and resources which would be required to develop
individual design and operating parameters and generally to develop a
technological basis to impose zero discharge new source limitations on a handful
of product/processes, especially since it is entirely possible that no new source
will employ any of these precise product/processes.
F. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS | .
In sum, the Agency believes .that the OCPSF guideline is based on a
rational, concentration-based approach to regulation which permits comprehensive
coverage while shifting the promotion of recycle from the national level to the
permit writer/control authority level. Given the extraordinary size and
complexity of the industry, the exercise of promoting recycle through the
development of individual product/process design and operating practices may be
beyond the reasonable scope of a guideline development effort. Moreover, even
if EPA were to undertake the exercise, the OCPSF record doe* not at present
provide a technical basis for EPA to conclude that recycle is a demonstrated
technology.
IV-23
-------
APPENDIX III-A
REVISED IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES Vs 1987 PROMULGATED
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
( COST ESTIMATES ARE PRESENTED IN 1982 DOLLARS )
-------
1 IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES 1
AT PROMULGATION 1
PLANT
NUMBER |
76
105
114
260
412
446
536
611
814
877
913
1241
1249
1569
1618
1650
1785
1928
2073
2206
| 2590
2735
2767
BAT
(
CAPITAL COSTI
-- 1
154,264 |
180,903 |
155,036
114,259
115,355
85,773
55,303
33,879
1,477,409
122,601
239,832
261,328
124,507
120,658
137,779
| 16,949,213
| 306,454
| 43,402
I 335,009
1 163,252
| 27,215
| 4.283,634
| 66,487
( DIRECT PLANTS
1982 dollars )
0 & M COST j
1 - "
36,383 |
37,838 |
36,426 |
34,201 |
, 34,260 |
1 32,765 |
1 31,791 |
31.778 |
I 122,703 |
1 34,650 |
| 40,962 |
| 42,063 |
| 34,753 |
1 34,545 |
| 35,478 |
| 1,206,306 i
i 44,306 |
1 31,778 |
I -45,682 |
1 36,876 |
| 31,778 |
1 312,359 |
| 32,015 |
) 1
LAND COST |
4,868
39,407
8,040
6,687
27,282
1,779
1,857
1,226
25,259
2,490
11,739
13,772
6,739
2,326
5,373
899,727
9,305
1,668
16,500
2,876
3,760
153,746
4,494
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES |
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES I
BAT t DIRECT PLANTS ) 1
1982 dollars
....,-•«•»-»•
CAPITAL COST) 0 & M COST
1 —
252,052
297,579
253,372
382,240
185,445
134,851
99,944
93,292
4,762,754
415,790
397,900
434,340
201,116
194,525
223,839
67,423,724
510,552
76,316
| 558,577
1 267,422
| 73,128
| 14,018,248
| 102,017
| 37,518
| 39,032
| 37,562
i 38,190
j 35,286
I 33,678
| 32,966
| 34,628
| 2:57,920
| 38,734
| 42,261
| 43,393
| 35 „ 808
I 35 ,,588
| 36,571
| 2, (567, 136
| 45,696
I 32,901
| 47,104
| 38,032
j 34,628
| 666,365
| 32,824
1
) 1
LAND COST
6,889
60,439
11,405
22,560
33,795
1,963
2,209
1,449
25,775
8,903
21,010 |
| 25,908
| 8,629 1
| 2,938 |
| 7,205 1
| 1,069,587 |
| 19,266 |
| 1,814 |
| 36,112 |
| 4,185 |
| 3,616 |
I 227,194 |
| 4,574 |
1 1
. .---
III-Al
-------
1
1
| PLANT
(NUMBER
10
22
33
49
51
52
72
79
93
94
110
119
120
122
143
149
161
163
196
199
203
206
212
214
220
221
240
249
257
262
266
283
292
293
297
302
310
321
326
334
354
430
433
438
IN -PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COST| 0 & M COST
38,458
111,459
1,796,964
176,242
123,508
51,292
35,667
52,999
100,445
44,225
32,594
35,088
48,027
74,706
34,492
53,307
187,252
51,421
165,699
152,707
31,919
74,515
33,247
245,972
41,678
266,317
2,388,306
75,705
261,328
28,097
29,728
1,929,490
102,992
188,988
25,278
99,926
84,702
31,218
59,507
43,402
115,682
3,070,808
84,169
121,480
31,778
34,052
144,644
37.585
34,699
31,778
31,778
31,779
33,479
31,778
31,778
31,778
31,778
32,296
31,778
31,779
38,182
31,778
37,010
36,298
31,778
32,289
31,778
41,278
31,778
42,315
184,789
32,335
42,063
31,778
31,778
153,681
33,609
38,275
31,778
33,452
32,717
31,778
31,846
31,778
34,277
230,778
32,693
34,589
LAND COST
3,663
1,467
45,448
38,506
6,697
2,945
3,609
17/371
1,532
16,295
2,624
5,893
1,336
20,523
1,342
4,060
9,478
4,003
8,355
2,718
15 , 244
5,059
949
4,195
16,021
3,135
65,816
2,129
13,010
15,138
1,967
68,756
6,208
3,573
3,488
1,966
3,135
15,213
3,664
1,413
5,629
114,330
1,758
1,758
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COST| 0 & M COST
54,933
371,105
5,756,909
289,619
241,734
76,348
61,254
79,219
159,927
77,934
55,348
97,034
70,871
231,276
48,395
95,948
379,881
76,565
332,741
249,389
44,179
230,584
56,599
510,031
117,869
555,621
30,377,381
141,410
1,039,118
46,800
40,612
6,173,704
164,284
383,694
33,432
159,038
268,057
43,035
108,400
76,316
225,074
9,874,439
158,891
195,933
32,470
38,007
304,610
38,769
36,347
32,475
32,901
32,488
34,452
32,901
32,901
34,628
32,470
35,724
32,470
32,933
40,100
32,475
38,846
37,429
32,470
35,714
32,901
43,392
34,628
44,488
1,135,834
33,694
47,264
32,901
32,470
323,893
34,592
40,200
32,470
34,424
36,309
32,470
33,065
32,901
35,886
489,461
34,113
35,635
LAND COST
3,352
4,849
51,447
58,262
11,579
2,814
3,686
16,712
1,793
17,839
2,612
7,192
1,261
48,490
1,218
4,761
20,654
3,827
16,971
3,827
13,791
11,926
950
10,761
22,809
8,448
346,162
2,893
85,770
14,516
1,779
80,500
7,339
7,828
3,052
2,297
8,238
13,758
4,488
1,537
9,403
158,336
2,509
2,226
III-A2
-------
I
I
(PLANT
(NUMBER
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION "*
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
(CAPITAL COST| 0 & M COST
458
468
492
494
522
543
567
592
607
624
658
661
702
706
717
722
724
743
749
768
771
791
' 797
814
830
862
887 |
905 |
929 |
944 |
958 |
975 (
976 (
987 |
992 |
997
1006
1018
1047
1052
1053
1057
1083
1085
2,16^,647
42,553
36,508
320,686
135,103
64,898
27,215
86,403
69,725
2,538,969
171,026
26,848
45,804 |
42,119 |
254,220 |
250,039 |
31,919 |
45,025 |
83,680 |
24,200
118,360
40.308
35,667
1,477,397
23,508
130,517
222,526
31,919
25,278
26,279
80,319
64,898
177,105
24,200
75,274
37,318
34,492
118,149
180,385
104,729
42,294
23,024
38,859
28,933
I
"LAND"COST |CAPITAL COSTI o & M COST
169,654
31,778
31,778
44,996
35,331
31,970
31,778
32,794
32,117
194,961
37,301
31,778
31,778
31,778
41,701
41,487
31,778
31,778
32,671
31,778
34,421
31,778
31,778
122,703
31,778
35,080
40,060
31,778
31,778
31,778
32,524
31,970
37,632
31,778
32,318
31,778
31,778
34,409
37,810
33,699
31,778
31,778
31,778
31,778
I
358,718
1,286
2,669
5,
7,
1,
3,
3,
,493
,183
,660
944
,844
,393
98,792
7,721
840
1,315
3,308
6,073
5,497
3,138
904
752
552
6,485
2,728
1,349
25,259
816
990
956
1,329
15,232
552
284
180
981
,216
,645
640
954
2,217
9,166
1,403
368
840
1,
3,
5;
6,
2
3,
5,
1,
3,
1,
1,
3,
27,017,425
61,730
101,464
534,507
266,554
196,214
45,138
274,412
129,150
8,125,233
344,357
44,447
131,256
119,28S
422,301
415,214
87,274
65,850
131,280
39,497
190,590
I 113,479
| 61,254
6,315.806
30,606
256,720
368,502
54,056
33,432
35,037
125,548
196,214
291,094
64,292
116,953
104,007
48,395
190,228
296,693
I 167,257
| 119,851
| 37,316
2,704 | 55,597
3,532 | 48,380
LAND COST
1,033,377
32,470
34,628
46,402
37,036
35,213
32,901
36,412
33,428
412,320
39,158
32,901
34,631
34,628
43,021
42,802
34,628
32,470
33,573
32,901
35,457
34,628
32,901
320,545
•12,470
36,763
41,331
32,901
32,470
32,470
33,410
35,213
38,818
34,628
33.178
34,628
32,470
35,445
39,003
34,688
34,628 |
32,901 |
32,470 1
32,901 I
,800,014
1,191
3,376
11,697
13,029
3,478
893
10,272
4,446
129,133
15,968
793
.036
2
4,
754
11,241
10,078
3,515
844
,917
.305
I
1
3
8,122
770
378
36,389
5,089
12,445
3
1,
,071
.316
13,328
3,
5,
1,
1,
,108
,701
2,472
6,039
,056
,738
4,695
•866
2,775
14,037
1,670
531
735
2,477
3,410
III-A3
-------
| PLANT
| NUMBER
1086
1091
1094
1117
1126
1163
1172
1173
1181
1191
1194
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
1249
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1426
1432
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
IN- PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COST| 0 & M COST
142,108
136,001
138,306
24,423
191,682
96,736
204,121
23,024
90,364
56,810
33,183
35,088
40,308
73,357
276,642
35,667
37,843
178,425
62,529
180,579
54,570
124,507
28,097
168,246
147,924
21,995
22,649
33,941
68,240
75,499
45,025
21,995
35,088
37,843
126,379
158,530
90,067
159,204
21,995
27,215
75,274
205,139
29,014
54,511
35,716
35,381
35,507
31,778
38,420
33,292
39,087
31,778
32,980
31,806
31,778
31,778
31,778
32,245
42,834
31,778
31,778
37,703
31,909
37,820
31,785
34,753
31,778
37,149
36,035
31,778
31,778
31,778
32,068
32,327
31,778
31,778
31,778
31,778
34,855
36,617
32,966
36,654
31,778
31,778
32,318
39,141
31,778
31,785
LAND COST
32,080
4,391
7,747
520
7,130
4,137
7,553
15,232
5,371
1,108
3,570
1,767
2,728
5/015
13,776
959
1,611
2,413
3,210
8,100
17,580
6,739
3,530
2,952
3,413
944
1,216
1,339
4,555
1,280
1,429
3,552
3,599
2,688
2,334
8, -193
5,360
1,944
6,968
1,328
1,645
8,493
3,532
1,403
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COST) 0 & M COST
231,251
268,485
224,743
64,938
389,615
313,614
768,788
60,899
171,774
102,970
46,247
49,374
113,479
226,393
460,246
50,327
53,916
293,347
95,308
365,245
81,864
201,116
46,800
275,959
241,205
35,416
29,242
93,483
208,043
117,337
128,709
35,416
60,137
65,465
247,866
317,152
288,201
569,017
57,955
45,138
233,338
338,911
78,489
160,297
36,820
37,089
36,601
34,628
40,355
37,058
43,902
34,628
34,442
32,997
32,470
32,470
34,628
35,650
44,186
32,470
32,470
38,893
32,692
39,714
32,508
35,808
32,901
38,316
37,154
32,901
32,470
34,628
35,378
33,188
34,628
32,901
32 , 901
32,901
36,518
38,424
36,638
41,103
34,628
32,901
35,756
40,382
34,628
34,797
LAND COST
43 , 640
7,993
10,406
455
15,750
12,154
40,884
12,704
7,929
1,333
3,234
1,605
3,770
11,666
26,807
872
1,472
3,674
3,213
17,284
17,020
8,629
3,385
4,361
4,732
826
1,064
1,586
9,964
1,353
2,178
3,108
3,659
2,796
4,084
16,230
14,829
8,611
5,609
1,257
3,913
13,929
3,626
2,528
III-A4
-------
1
1
1
1
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES |
AT PROMULGATION -V 1
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS ) 1
( 1982 dollars ) 1
1
'.NUMBER (CAPITAL COST| 0
1
I
1539 |
1560 |
1575 |
1595 |
1608 |
1622 |
1628 |
1645 |
1657 |
1659 |
1666 |
1667 |
1706 |
1716 |
1740 |
1742 |
1743 |
1744 |
1751 |
1764 |
1773 |
1788 |
1793 |
1805 |
1826 |
1832 |
1833 |
1853 |
1876 |
1891 |
1894 |
.1899 |
1904 1
1931 |
1936 |
1971 |
1974 |
1993 |
2004 |
2007 |
2018
2037
2070
2084
......|---
224,484 |
28,097 |
21,995 |
92,694 |
71,974 |
142,193 |
39,834 |
42,553 |
1,559,661 |
98,347 |
64,898 |
203,723 |
1,702,823 |
85,931 |
143,798 |
88,716 |
42,163 |
28,097 |
27,574 |
82,691 |
44,225 |
112,364 |
26,084 |
153,488 |
82,357 |
44,225 |
124,706 |
2,027,158 |
64,434 |
239,640 |
55,389 |
118,571 |
3,184,631 |
52,999 |
69,516 |
75,462 |
63,491 J
60,026 |
151,922 |
42,981 |
201,722 |
59,767 |
243,158 |
, 118,571 |
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
&~M~COSTT~LAND COST JCAPITAL COST| 0^
40,163 |
31,778 j
31,778 |
33,092 |
32,195 |
35,720 |
31,778 |
31,778 |
128,375 |
33,373 |
31,970 |
39,065 |
138,204 |
32,773 |
35,808 |
32,902 |
31,778 |
31,778 |
31,778 |
32,627 |
31,778 |
34,100 |
31,778 |
36,341 |
32,612 |
31,778 1
34,764 |
160,324 |
31,957 |
40,952 |
31,791 |
34,432 |
238,434 |
31,779 |
32,110 |
32,325 |
31,933 |
31,856 |
36,255 !
31,778 |
38,959 |
31,851 |
41,134 |
34,432 |
11,216 |
3,117 |
3,552 |
2,681 |
1,605 |
5 ,'512 |
15,837 |
3,317 |
18,431 |
5,681 |
19,038 |
10,237 |
25,658 |
5,202 |
7,995 |
22,762 |
3,680 |
3,530 |
3,488 |
1,899
1,421
6,606
15,232
7,038
1,895
2,799
2,978
80 ,-244
1,514
3,175
4,367
5,733
117,797
17,371
4,600
1,279
4,391
1,598
33,895
3,989
2,696
18,297
12,116
27,846
371,830 |
46,800 |
28,208 |
146,674 |
133,752 |
281,809 |
57,212 |
120,688 |
6,683,620
188,474
119,314
766,969 |
5,462,456 |
162,548 |
234,143
139,878
61,080
46,800
37,123
260,574
126,103
180,325
| 43,015
| 250,724 |
1 129,024
| 64,515
| 424 , 341
1 24,987,274
1 118,371
1 397,575
| 100,118
| 399,517
I 10, 254 ,'303
| 155,182
1 107,160
I 117,273
| 96,938
| 179,203
| 248,045
| 75,490
| 333,089
| 108,925
| 403 , 544
| 190,952
& M COST
41,437
32,901
32,470
34,035
33,524
37,457
32,470
34,628
336,108
34,884 |
i 33,239
43,878
290,888 |
1 34,205
36,917 |
33,827
32,470
32,901
32,470
•16,188
34,628
35,116
1 32,901
1 37,474
33,508
; 32,470
38,871
970,397
1 33,222
42,251
32,968
38,471
505,993
34,752
, 32,937
33,187
32,722
34,997
37,384
32,901
40,193
33,072
42,438
35,469
-! .---
LAND COST
19,335
2,989
3,108
3,043
2,132
10,281
14,543
4,811
27,333
8,740 |
24,181 |
55,326 |
28,274 1
7,497 |
10,938 i
25,424 |
3,403 |
3,385 |
3,052 |
4,890 |
2,132 |
8,093
14,301
9,936
2,062
2,605
10,801
389,265
1,918
5,679
5,198
19,943
164,669
30,550
4,742
1,352
4,413
3,131
47,608
4,324
4,381
22,454
21,857 |
34,904
III-A5
-------
!
1
(PLANT
(NUMBER
2093
2117
2129
2176
2184
2191
2232
2241
2243
2250
2259
2261
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2348
2350
2359
2442
2459
2465
2469
2485
2487
2495
2498
2501
2517
2524
2539
2548
2565
2634
2635
2641
2646
2666
2677
2714
2736
2741
IN- PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COST
180,385
103,741
64,434
66,263
73,357
34,492
163,252
308,833
262,203
49,767
48,027
134,922
33,247
48,944
263,943
64,666
61,044
329,039
74,515
50,105
23,024
25,687
57,364
63,965
35,088
1,590,890
119,828
177,172
56,810
57,226
113,037
55,389
118,254
95,367
198,826
67,152
1,959,465
127,060
161,793
44,225
120,554
24,200
185,499
97,007
| 0 & M COST
37,810
33,648
31,957
32,008
32,245
31,778
36,876
44,422
42,107
31,778
31,778
35,321
31,778
31,778
42,195
31,963
31,876
45,397
32,289
31,778
31,778
31,778
31,813
31,945
31,778
130,523
34,500
37,635
31,806
31,811
34,136
31,791
34,415
33,224
38,804
32,035
155,721
34,892
36,796
31,778
-34,539
31,778
38,087
33,305
LAND COST
9,703
5,894
4,424
1,536
1,622
1,342
6,187
66,148
4,469
2,200
4,132
2,683
3,153
16,853
4,646
19,004
1,611
14,555
4,736
1 ,'482
2,160
2,440
17,961
1,171
1,232
70,040
958
9,021
3,682
1,564
4,616
1,347
6,481
4,098
10,010
1,689
47,796
2,559
6,139
1,010
1,747
3,552
3,514
5,628
IN -PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COST| 0 & M COST
296,693
199,815
118,371
201,030
226,393
58,990
267,422
1,275,337
546,383
88,894
85,441
266,167
56,599
141,609
1,051,858
98,930
111,505
548,550
115,661
89,564
29,838
34,087
170,031
117,420
49,374
18,740,326
233,892
291,207
168,132
169,558
181,477
100,118
190,409
182,227
405,347
103,146
6,268,347
205,488
580,200
64,515
235,438
64,292
305,423
185,663
39,003
35,191
33,222
35,279
35,650
32,901
38,032
49,897
44,268
32,902
32,901
37,025
32,901
34,663
47,412
32,761
33,110
46,813
33,145
32,903
32,470
32,470
34,893
33,206
32,470
770,425
36,130
38,822
34,873
34,888
35,154
32,968
35,451
34,717
40,764
32,848
328,251
35,954
41,268
32,470
36.173
34,628
39,290
34,808
LAND COST
14,859
9,313
5,602
3,276
3,773
1,357
9,004
497,675
11,924
2,513
4,659
4,862
3,156
27 , 647
30,875
19,191
1,994
31,497
4,987
1,697
1,890
2,135
33,834
1,479
1,119
294,834
1,630
13,687.
6,878
2,941
5,669
1,603
8,114
6,210
22,593
1,724
56,354
3,307
27,546
940
2,983
3,085
5,460
8,601
III-A6
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
' 2748
2756
i 2776
2793
2796
4001
4003
4006
4007
4008
4014
4022
4024
4026
•r W *» w
4027
4032
4044
4047
4050
4057
4070
4072
TOTALS
IN -PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS ) ^;
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COSTj
190,890
1,533,142
49,801
113,149
196,476
66,776
134,197
56,530
130,498
. 97,277
23,626
42,119
26,279
92,263
111,118
28,933
165,485
60,026
38,859
48,699
41,899
41,229
49,802,940
0 & M COST
38,378
126,548
31,778
34,142
38,678
32,023
35,282
31,803
35,079
33,319
31,778
31,778
31,778
33,072
. 34,034
31,778
36,998
31,856
31,778
31,778
31,778
31,778
9,983,728
LAND COST
2,281
68,768
3,955
2,345
3,501
3,977
7,563
6,814
3,888
24,181
1,216
3, -747
1,216
5,444
6,190
3,739
2,259
1,136
868
3,923
1,281
1,275
2,523,438
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COST|
708,716
4,935,083
144,460
377,819
324,147
123,134
463,307
102,407
448,045
315,693
30,793
61,007
70,364
175,736
369,750
39,321
271,239
179,203
55,597
140,798
73,370
72,059
215,256,510
0 fit M COST
43,092
i26(i,090
'34,678
39 ',903
33,309
39,490
32,991
39,249
37,093
! 32,470
32,470
34,628
34,545
37,985
! 32,470
. 38,159
34,997
- 32,470
34,660
; 32,901
32,901
15,591,565
LAND COST
11,698
71,652
6.587
7,848
5.609
5.113
29,130
8.176
14,635
71,364
1,064
3,464
1,133
8,118
20,406
3,383
3.310
2,226
795
6,407
1,377
1,363
6,209,111
III-A7
-------
APPENDIX III-B
REVISED BAT AND PSES COST COMPLIANCE ESTIMATES
AND TECHNOLOGY BASIS
( COST DATA PRESENTED IN 1982 DOLLARS )
-------
BAT COST DATA
oes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
PLANT
NUMBER
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
485
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
583212
881544
0
912274
0
1529448
328468
541052
0
0
1200770
0
1118466
328468
1406902
0
1011495
0
862959
731177
821587
610771
454726
354104
366729
0
1231815
1411929
60026
384432
0
594489
8973044
405958
6856767
2969660
450142
1 461491
2000000
642285
3551871
868975
110889
919901
2745254
0
498116
1866959
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
0
77154
128618
0
115757
4750
1562142
31298
196316
0
0
2123576
0
368477
33389
668691
0
103592
0
451849
1072783
757824
115960
28989
50601
54659
0
147463
651263
31856
67491
0
119654
3754917
63704
3047519 .
841368
33874
47794
335000
82906
3621418
154617
34022
82783
1026242
0
37693
2954508
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
8994
4324
0
4653
0
46817
310
1937
0
0
340814
0
31427
2412
22693
0
21556
0
27831
66000
86733
5036
2124
8063
3248
0
38554
13206
626
5018
0
21801
96349
1466
248419
37964
2736
8211
9100
69000
129088
28737
6542
5349
41564
0
2374
114488
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
3536
0
37220
0
193544
11724
0
0
0
276731
0
472694
74440
738817
0
48386
0
0
0
193544
375178
0
385227
470833
0
81884
776832
0
111660
0
661521
329397
3908
358431
1827258
0
0
0
0
660906
7816
0
28101
545805
0
0
0
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
762
0
8016
0
41683
2525
0
0
0
59599
0
101803
16032
159118
0
10421
0
0
0
41683
80801
0
82966
101402
0
17635
193075
0
24048
0
164416
116988
842
127299
888306
0
0
0
0
.234725
1683
o.
6052
135655
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITOR I KG COSTS
29539
29539 M
29539 1
51259
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
33782
29539
51259
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
29539
51259
65286
26827
26827
' 36574
26827
51259
29539
29539
26827
41206
26827
29539
41206
III-B1
-------
BAT COST DATA
ots
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
PLANT
NUMBER
486
488
500
502
518
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
872185
1154248
328709
0
1950998
72315
0
989126
0
116439
0
655540
947308
328468
809133
4149193
454557
1247646
858500
919793
0
697987
1403937
2383893
0
471403
0
0
540068
551554
0
6225611
8484607
837227
0
3377409
0
0
451103
552177
1497397
0
0
448303
2743896
1141795
115653
0
1291236
TOTAL
OCM COSTS
102024
468093
38823
2281636
42686
0
240404
0
34318
1052470
146462
34168
73458
393797
52002
428399
692391
530584
0
146981
781729
244490
0
84419
0
0
648766
106422
0
1332591
3028592
151315
0
3155331
0
0
42992
305539
933303
0
0
78050
1079582
797059
84916
0
448579
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
27793
109650
5380
14440
7095
16403
2395
14970
10316
1578
12751
141987
2826
22673
18605
10537
0
15825 .
40680
94475
0
5792
3151
6680
0
48218
109041
4430
0
138805
0
0
6002
6730
27721
0
0
8660
101930
47694
1951
0
13690
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
10608
82256
163396
0
329397
0
13529
0
o
0
2419
87095
2680
374795
0
764871
115382
716485
0
429694
866856
0
0
651406
0
984190
0
604877
268163
346146
0
0
0
0
0
65879
0
0
560371
372200
464270
0
0
850672
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
2285
17715
35190
0
70942
0
o
2914
o
0
o
0
521
18757
577
133111
0
164729
24850
. 154308
0
152609
215450
0
0
161902
o
o
0
244612
0
150337
95240
74549
0
0
0
0
0
14188
0
0
139276
80160
164889
0
211427
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
12468
0
0
0
0
0
0
57889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124684
0
0
0
151402
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COS'
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
51259
51259
51259
29539
51259
41206
29539
29539
29539
33782
41206
41206
29539
33782
41206
41206
33782
33782
29539
26827
29539
26827
51259
41206
41206
29539
29539
51259
III-B2
-------
BAT COST DATA
DBS
99
TT
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
PLANT
NUMBER
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
. 1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
782986
469119
. 828624
328468
328468
0
454719
454779
349821
0
972717
0
458705
0
438206
139529
2219293
479801
835903
833465
0
332097
808568
1051487
0
0
0
544754
2953691
1199794
1740987
0
0
411405
1002773
4106377
454719
373116
1470942
350850
482849
8463828
1004495
811772
328468
425575
1036063
0
TOTAL
CAM COSTS
67022
83791
275200
32299
35924
22868
79839
49140
207113
14500
113196
0
65409
35574
246146
60911
185891
4798387
41724
100348
124479
0
0
0
69758
1186459
466637
2625061
1000
0
67752
• 580864
2354667
14197
56619
1876635
718244
89871
2288557
252421
4140048
36119
75044
174401
25000
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
2865
6785
45089
1695
1112
•
2736
6443
8310
14621
, 0
8284
6155
1079
24383
12220
4611
23760
2210
36200
23939
1879
117597
24908
58497
0
3220
9225
147923
8460
3606
68080
42480
8602
84297
45473
22573
2583
11239
8011
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
o
55830
642303
604825
55830
115382
o
0
585659
355451
o
524713
0
488885
37220
0
278325
0
604423
0
o
214015
521080
24565
0
617015
409104
541551
0
772315
772315
287695
0
513636
195405
0
0
340219
30334
0
118546
217737
186100
0
O&M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
12024
159639
130260
12024
24850
0
0
145561
76553
0
186355
0
105290
0
8016
0
98849
0
214665
0
0
46092
112224
5291
o
o
0
0
153354
88108
116633
0
o
166332
166332
102177
0
110621
42084
0
0
120831
6533
0
25531
46894
40080
.
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
71248
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
89060
0
0
! 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
51259
33782
41206
41206
33782
'
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
41206
33782
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
57597
26827
29539
29539
51259
III-B3
• - "-
-------
DBS
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
PLANT
NUMBER
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
905355
331423
576429
685778
778349
0
912609
71050018
0
0
73357
343107
4893992
449881
778349
328468
841150
671437
378121
7875173
1035891
1012253
444655
782792
618340
1389291
328468
529854
386297
1135742
686981
859108
1251214
0
599338
0
0
674383
0
454719
1312598
328468
378242
0
785050
1565332
63318
362960
TOTAL
OCM COSTS
0
288820
41307
1291930
104759
41593
0
479951
5988312
0
0
32245
46699
1257500
13302
56004
31437
105982
139572
58125
9718672
243484
192393
77041
44868
705348
881655
31617
113692
63117
1255931
106868
76427
628168
0
119580
0
0
80766
0
17720
1389196
34770
59210
0
50058
2107497
35647
63158
BAT
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
19941
3524
4296
13436
2855
0
10155
. 1228685
0
0
694
7103
26851
13086
9912
826
21038
15144
6076
157155
13226
29524
13785
8886
3628
27052
631
19606
5875
11405
27170
5729
61880
0
5777
0
0
9318
0
2736
79420
3724
6012
0
5652
66931
1953
6065
COST DATA
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
502470
206571
0
0
1359
0
232625
1732309
0
0
0
307065
276873
0
33684
36848
3350
397230
547134
0
871002
758625
546210
9863
0
183867
41873
290316
15204
308740
666238
7072
121523
0
311449
0
0
0
0
0
0
96772
57691
0
14330
878392
0
34801
0 I M
SLUDGE COSTS
Q
108216
44489
0
0
293
0
50100
645153
0
0
0
66132
98333
0
7254
7936
721
141079
117835
0
309342
188550
135756
2124
0
39599
9018
62525
3275
66493
143486
1523
26172
0
110613
0
0
0
0
0
0
20842
12425
0
3086
189178
0
7495
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING 0
29539
29539
26827
29539
26327
33782
26827
29539
57597
29539
29539
33782
26327
51259
26327
26827
26827
29539
41206
26S27
41206
29539
51259
29539
26827
51259
29539
33782
33782
33782
41206
33782
26327
29539
33782
29539
51259
26827
29539
29539
33782
41206
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
III-B4
-------
BAT COST DATA
DBS
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
253
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
PLANT TOTAL
NUMBER CAPITAL COSTS
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
. 2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
657716
0
0
355187
779120
861504
670350
1717297
783187
458966
794313
564000
1430431 '
1521382
414832
623153
0
0
0
424577
864597
, 2093797
0
341793
0
426189
328468
537219
543298
464098
0
1228402
0
0
328468
577551
6501134
415461
0
1160796
356565
0
740217
1068738
870231
1614132
521479
366452
0
TOTAL TOTAL
01* COSTS LAND COSTS
216786
50962
136702.
222780
139270
1113595
42842
66378
66472
115855
2902047
2272954
118514
161108
0
0
90041
117054
2526055
0
46190
0
71906
31298
47124
104153
52884
0
182965
0
0
32929
117539
6661361
68897
1000
1420471
63076
0
426664
320795
417182
1128181
190457
54573
0
28974
3103
7225
7759
6606
57123
5329
8085
9040
12674
61784
53161
3459
35602
0
6312
7232
109087
0
7518
0
3452
624
3521
5081
2830
13864
0
1874
62203
215084
3285
0
31753
2973
0
28735
17744
56775
57991
3733
9703
_
CAPITAL 0 t M ! CONTRACT ANNUAL
SLUDGE COSTS SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS . MONITORING COSTS
816281
0
o
392671
,
320092
395910
1047842
5620
10515
280267
622275
65135
814763
9119
0
0
0
411281
1489
566116
297202
0"
874670
16563
0
948787
0
524449
66810
0
344970
800230
691866
15446
0
930580
329925
363445
0
468972
202880 I
0
0
84569
Oi
68938 ;
140610 !
372148
1210 ;
2265
60360
154661
14028 ;
202503
1964
0
0
0
88577
321
121923
o !
64008
0
188376
3567
0,
,
235813
0
u
0
186261
!
o
14389 !
0
122518
172344
0 !
171958
3327
0
231288
117175
129080
0
101002
0
i
0
0
89060
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
29539
26827
33782 |
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
t**J^r
41206
33782
29539
41206
33782
41206
26827
51259
51259
51259
26827
26827
29539
III-B5
-------
BAT COST DATA
OSS
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
2SB
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
PLANT TOTAL
NUMBER CAPITAL COSTS
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2660
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795,
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
328468
1718347
0
0
1207405
858178
422449
0
0
1268164
672524
12586
0
818854
339927
1018611
0
0
1257905
613699
458155
15495718
117139
464278
506987
430485
778726
458155
917047
591020
1080229
1236899
62529
189850
0
0
0
992916
542838
1137313
553899
332273
53273
TOTAL TOTAL CAPITAL
OtM COSTS LAND COSTS SLUDGE COSTS
32169
2295209
0
0
376056
76221
70859
0
0
2667176
139875
18853
0
84752
45444
490372
1000
0
1803263
669010
40786
1263917
87578
82458
94189
64122
67022
40786
157462
73529
865104
268670
31909
38322
0
0
0
238249
109519
745696
72254
41828
60681
723
31514
0
0
23701
12516
3394
0
37870
26412
6437
0
12964
2365
26144
0
0
39263
14248
4960
272135
8235
5650
18345
6220
6555
8157
33873
9269
6742
16958
4280
5836
0
0
0
41090
17926
38271
14185
1578
20687
53411
465250
407559
1861
848616
o
289758
398549
0
4094
282872
11166
990259
0
571430
0
623084
796051
21774
55830
9119
35731
575544
792876
0
0
0
0
27171
158929
72579
0
215876
0
OtM CONTRACT ANNUAL
SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS MONITORING COS1
11503
100200
87775
401
182765
0
62405
141547
882
60922
2405
246121
202947
154862
197852
4689
12024
0.
1964
7695
143047
281595
t
,
o
5852
34228
15631
46493
— ••• *«** w » at
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
0
0
0
178120
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
41206
41206
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
26827
29539
51259
29539
41206
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29S39
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
319047018
131971874
7254151
57547665
15354179
1566565
9475292
III-B6
-------
PSES COST DATA
oes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
10
11
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
PLANT
NUMBER
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
f 1
72
79
88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
158
161
162
163
166
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
232
240
244
249
257
262
266
276
283
285
292
293
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
328468
454351
838120
1350986
527873
6310032
762984
1326705
859140
0
0
137176
533543
0
159927
903624
907786
0
551358
853663
685600
874584
980434
1771583
0
957582
97912
1607634
583200
498503
685303
0
56599
1331004
572588
1357031
489168
31269428
0
924202
1741164
893723
823404
655540
6182704
0
1000599
1442499
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
31298
32339
74081
740063
211506
1110003
156290
968057
76913
0
0
118699
47130
0
34452
158942
141183
0
45497
77070
- 58337
100313
229157
2293628
0
218398
254896
1771764
1328857
42932
51889.
0
33901
307377
46503
151339
103636
2487826
0
88035
1576686
129141
74097
1052470
743893
0
133114
2294075
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
451
7848
11933
14894
3608
74627
97412
62256
9185
0
0
21329
50984
0
1793
136275
21394
0
20278
4347
82762
4664-
35950
o
39448
0
34291
14951
78477
17239
48063
20386
0
950
16147
57081
11526
7899
362459
0
7293
130061
118701
6493
15244
80500
0
22335
31040
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
3722
0
3461
52666
0
139575
0
116126
4224
0
0
0
0
0
0
7444
3722
0
0
9305
0
3722
14330
0
298691
0
11166
0
227414
0
0
0
0
0
182378
0
133062
0
213085
0
30148
74440
2419
2419
0
0
0
64018
0
0 A N
SLUDGE COSTS
I
802
0
745
11343
0
30060
0
25010
910
0
0
0
0
0
0
1603
802
0
0
2004
0
802
3086 i
0
64328
0 j
2405
0
48978
0
0 i
0
0 :
0
|
39278
0 !•
l
28657
0
45892
0
6493
16032
521
521
0 .
0
0
13788
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
89060
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
356240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
.0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
33782
29539
33782
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
29539
.III-B7
-------
PSES COST DATA
oss
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
PLANT
NUMBER
297
299
302
310
321
326
334
348
354
357
417
423
428
430
433
438
449
451
458
468
492
494
508
522
529
543
544
567
592
605
607
618
624
658
661
667
702
706
717
720
722
724
743
749
768
771
777
791
796
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
361900
340166
613750
722381
497359
1004916
859503
0
1224415
0
0
901018
0
11015425
1113272
654024
0
0
27805712
888651
101464
542307
0
1395176
454324
650538
0
847646
728736
0
1047815
0
9126969
1127885
889934
0
134256
573612
422301
460286
1610575
541598
892807
914467
882084
686809
0
567803
0
TOTAL
OtM COSTS
65972
45542
70848
64072
42880
266160
74494
0
817501
0
0
436183
0
1071365
465597
88519
0
0
2569528
105285
34628
286402
0
1156287
11526
53800
• o
102057
64784
0
338302
0
1606568
102926
126239
0
54631
47481
43021
45359
4789469
45090
162068
82156
120627
590259
0
46241
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
6312
1843
5085
13098
48030
32810
4672
0
48497
0
0
8688
0
203165
16101
4423
0
0
1918455
4889
3376
11697
0
66108
2736
6466
0
7156
16158
0
30763
0
152704
25349
6441
0
2036
11810
11241
3062
35742
10571
7421
5281
26562
40983
0
9656
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
76301
284733
0
0
0
19354
1675
0
84303
0
0
55830
0
748510
46525
0
0
0
0
16377
0
0
0
120965
0
0
0
1861
0
0
29032
0
263145
50433
1787
0
0
0
0
0
472694
0
7816
26426
1489
61599
0
0
0
01 M
SLUDGE COSTS
16433
61322
0
0
0
4168
361
0
18156
0
0
12024
0
186036
10020
0
0
0
0
3527
0
0
0
26052
0
0
0
401
0
0
6252
0
56673
10862
385
0 "
0
0
0
0
101803
0
1683
5691
321
13266
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
22265
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
102419
0
89060
0
0
0
22265
0
0
164761
0
222650
0
0
0
13359
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
133590
ANNUAL
MONITORING C
26327
OO5TG
29539
26327
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
26627
29539
26S27
41206
29539
26827
26827
26827
51259
33782
29535
33782
29535
29535
26621
26827
26827
26827
337K
26827
2953;
29539
4120£
33782
29539
29539
2953$
26827
26827
29535
4120?
26827
29539
26827
29535
29535
29535
26827
26827
III-B8
-------
PSES COST DATA
08S
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114.
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
PLANT
NUMBER
797
814
830
845
846
862
874
880
887
905
912
917
929
931
932
944
958
975
976
987
988
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
1047
1052
1053
1057
1064
1069
1076
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1107
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
917763
7518560
30606
408855
0
1309815
866397
0
1188068
533766
0
328468
487756
0
0
35037
125548
650933
764737
64292
0
571672
887194
405203
333002
1035194
0
783628
950444
902643
37316
0
422716
0
838784
48380
694350
1404174
507293
457746
519262
1462609
475122
1140424
1251348
60899
0
638757
792566
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
150943
1191471
32470
226882
0
1046843
335120
0
288290
83893
0
31351
42765
0
0
32470
33410
54663
157678
34628
0
56046
77032
110856
42241
148806
0
137673
89666
86663
32901
0
70934
o
74097
32901
109625
1176775
1074692
39842
47679
2365012
126133
'114112
210464
34628
0
471268
84182
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
11227
52582
5089
6529
0
60162
21295
0
9275
10340
0
2095
47600
0
0
3108
5701
4596
10077
1056
0
4474
13382
5463
6053
8063
0
22917
4147
1399
735
0
4781
0
8802
3410
80194
40951
49185
2167
1625
61950
8948
19813
48045
12704
0
38306
7428
CAPITAL 0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS SLUDGE COSTS
4839 1042
604877 150337
0 0
20657 4449
0 0
111697 24056
478277 103006
0 0
198755 42805
0 0
0 0
33498 7214
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4653 1002
3722 802
223320 48096
88584 19078
0 0
0 0
45408 9780
6588 1419
0 0
0 0
850477 183166
0 0
3536 762
0 0
0 0
145158 31262
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
9863 2124
0 0
0 0
0 0
46711 10060
26054 5611
CONTRACT ANNUAL
HAULING COSTS MONITORING COSTS
0 29539
0 41206
142496 33782
0 29539
133590 26827
0 26827
0 26827
26718 29539
0 29539
0 26827
129137 26827
0 29539
0 26827
218197 26827
4453 29539
200385 33782
0 29539
0 33782
0 26827
400770 26827
178120 26827
0 29539
0 29539
0 26827
0 29539
0 29539
222650 29539
0 33782
0 26827
0 33782
89060 33782
66795 29539
0 29539
62342 26827
0 26827
267180 33782
0 26827
0 29539
0 . 29539
8906 26827
0 26827
0 29539
0 26827
0 29539
0 26827
223986 33782
178120 26827
0 29539
0 29539
III-B9
-------
OSS
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
PUNT
NUMBER
1191
1194
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
1249
1253
1255
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1371
1386
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
987471
500571
49374
896666
680717
1372926
504651
382384
727383
549632
1149538
536188
1029111
454324
454719
893723
1058751
1557381
35416
29242
547807
990835
572056
999063
35416
915860
520184
1344159
0
0
709883
1071388
0
1096862
57955
891043
1016525
853252
533208
615016
0
1185162
0
454479
893723
795401
0
0
28208
TOTAL
OtM COSTS
229310
42770
32470
76291
59792
4807680
44257
63768
1858099
50412
106808
47595
112348
15794
27484
129141
89923
13052723
32901
32470
45285
97162
43908
189245
32901
148951
44196
1013886
0
0
113722
95263
0
159394
34628
127076
94160
208976
44935
48592
0
221174
0
34298
129141
95553
0
0
32470
PSES
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
9627
11226
1605
10120
20126
86775
2996
1785
15271
9099
26833
51292
20143
8460
2124
27681
7695
21744
826
1064
4574
19664
3477
12922
3108
29722
8682
21708
0
0
26766
25879
0
10922
5609
10255
7320
21963
11618
5264
0
35193
0
2736
24438
3438
0
0
3108
COST DATA
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
14516
0
0
3908
0
0
0
4839
0
0
57133
0
24565
0
0
2419
24193
148880
0
0
0
23263
0
7816
0
3908
0
122454
0
0
174190
65879
0
0
0
2233
29776
0
0
0
0
2S3468
0
0
2419
136970
0
0
0
OtM
SLUDGE COSTS
3126
0
0
842
0
0
0
1042
0
0
12305
0
5291
0
0
521
5210
32064
0
0
0
5010
0
1683
0
842
0
26373
0
0
37515
14188
0
0
0
481
6413
0
0
0
0
54589
0
0
521
29499
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
51210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
115778
0
48983
0
0
0
115778
0
0
0
222650
44530
0
0
14250
0
115778
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
75701
0
0
0
75701
44530
262727
ANNUAL
MONITORING CC
29539
33782
26827
26627
26827
26827
33782
29539
26827
33782
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
33782
29539
26327
26327
29539
26327
29539
29539
26327
29539
26327
33782
26327
26327
26327
29539
29939
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26B27
III-B10
-------
PSES COST DATA
OBS
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
PLANT
NUMBER
1595
1601
1608
1621
1622
1628
1645
1653
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1740
1742
1743
1744
1748
1751
1764
1773
1788
1793
1797
1801
1805
1808
1812
1826
1832
1 1833
1838
1843
1848
1853
1861
1876
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
1945
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
601768
47664
1057652
784293
1064996
919622
947272
657531
7257460
1183942
1027171
1623082
6097260
1121608
0
641504
923109
. 887664
893723
2257611
365591
1043761
580822
634649
888334
0
782792
717057
0
0
1077619
518839
1220165
0
0
43397
26285652
375681
1025204
0
0
892291
988521
1185438
11403060
459292
938369
578284
454324
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
65959
25803
356104
69261
92946
165423
102996
1074092
798636
620102
302448
256207
1137104
483178
0
132585
95203
100758
129141
7860591
63768
95435
47034
62389
124547
0
42739
123492
0
0
446297
43496
132986
0
0
26019
2313798
57177
299180
0
0
291299
241087
123022
2693218
43282
77576
485403
17894
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
6967
2420
14576
11491
17705
131776
13371
15332
34795
52451
171721
72236
33346
47680
0
23290
70248
12901
27681
98815
3387
8593
5120
16553
125773
0
3270
17623
0
0
16555
8491
16193
0
0
289
438329
3426
13649
0
0
8488
38836
30416
205772
2798
68908
34655
8460
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
31451
93050
33312
5583
6700
0
546210
67740
24193
304274
0
48944
0
722068
44664
6532
2419
660655
1303
28473
0
0
19354
0
5397
0
0
0
37220
0
100494
0
0
0
748004
40384
23635
0
0
0
16005
89328
273759
0
8188
24379
0
0 I M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
6774
20040
7174
1202
1443
0
135756
14589
5210 !
65531
0
10541
0
155510
9619
1407
521
142284
i
281 !
6132
0
0
|
4168 .
0
1162
0
0
0
8016 !
0
21643
0
0
0
185910
8697 |
5090
°
0 <
o ;
3447
19238
97227
0
1764
5250
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133590
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155855
89060
0
0
0
129137
44530
396317
0
0
0
178120
71248
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539 ^
.en
29539 i
29539
33782
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
26827
III-B11
-------
PSES COST DATA
DBS
246
247
248
249
250
•rWW
251
252
253
254
255
256
ftJV
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
PLANT
NUMBER
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007
2018
2022
2033
2037
2050
2057
2070
2075
2080
2084
2093
2108
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
2250
2253
2259
2261
2262
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2346
2348
2350
2359
2402
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
455222
454324
900065
96938
0
633527
454324
702369
942638
1209073
0
0
892112
0
454324
2081896
793256
328468
445715
1214161
0
983374
340647
1025204
0
983822
742090
726024
58990
0
1155073
2182954
2400156
872081
0
917285
1336228
0
510923
595933
1957070
882117
894692
1381989
577963
544620
924912
484162
0
TOTAL
OtM COSTS
39756
12406
85649
32722
0
52282
15971
51581
178678
2468986
0
0
75163
0
29682
3999167
85650
32940
65109
546905
0
107006
45736
299180
0
85682
2351856
82729
32901
0
397803
531323
4710827
74529
0
176555
1121406
0
43477
49305
519881
77343
75354
337211
113686
328371
186944
42765
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
4957
2124
3751
4413
0
6119
3600
81880
34348
18921
0
59499
0
7056
104847
10493
3087
69176
34381
0
20500'
1856
39870
0
6573
19326
7157
1357
0
21716
596447
42146
7227
0
34854
23085
0
10212
61919
38961
58940
5230
46828
7760
31732
12547
6750
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
9491
0
0
0
0
0
8188
297760
0
4094
0
0
446640
36922
AAQQA
OOTTv
0
232625
0
65135
288455
23635
0
21588
0
0
0
0
26054
660655
524802
2419
0
9305
120593
0
0
0
649489
13827
4280
277289
286771
29032
10422
0
0
0 t H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
2044
0
0
0
0
0
1764
64128
o
0
882
0
0
96192
7952
14429
0
50100
0
14028
62124
5090
0
4649
0
0
0
0
5611
142284
113026
521
0
2004
25972
0
0
0
139879
2978
922
59719
101849
6252
2244
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
178120
111325
0
0
0
0
31171
84607
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
138043
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
44530
111325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35624
ANNUAL
MONITORING CC
26827
26827
29539
29539
26627
26627
26S27
«u>«
2953
26K27
26827
26827
33782
33782
26827
33782
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26S27
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29535
29539
26827
29539
, 29539
33782
26827
26827
2953?
2953$
2953$
26827
26827
26827
3578:
33782
4120:
2953?
26827
26827
2953?
III-B12
-------
PSES COST DATA
oes
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
PLANT
NUMBER
2411
2426
2432
2436
2442
2459
2462
2465
2469
2485
2487
2495
2498
2501
2507
2517
2521
2524
2539
2548
2565
2571
2578
2581
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2642
2646
2647
2666
2677
2679
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2794
2796
2805
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
402421
0
121867
703983
834882
953218
789713
1023252
832561
19728758
1247707
1099477
951319
952350
0
964664
0
883305
1190941
1168425
1777269
0
0
0
0
328468
187711
6605815
782792
664770
0
1394702
0
518839
1309025
328468
505281
39243
847479
781792
968633
1194885
9842187
1022687
485880
843693
4171026
324147
0
TOTAL
OtM COSTS
65201
341512
148658
98240
82162
101712
295822
74063
1579796
878249
223216
78222
80454
0
93303
0
74849
833188
585208
2550851
0
0
0
0
32496
242227
785653
44626
93636
0
169266
0
42765
922324
36211
143156
73800
76221
171741
101640
140087
1882475
212187
96366
122221
838656
39903
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
11567
26581
26272
18076
73814
4355
10553
4027
317723
8252
26593
14867
6425
13581
0
4402
52053
37695
86293
0
0
988
10460
59184
9033
6419
0
34517
0
3064
16233
4277
6960
6260
11418
8944
19370
13793
185390
36615
8849
11093
76755
5609
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
710902
0
437085
1563
14888
120965
23263
2605
452223
91561
78162
9863
14814
54527
0
3350
60669
62902
288455
0
0
59347
0
139575
2978
0
0
3722
0
0
109799
120034
0
0
1303
0
55458
0
535084
10254
0
0
0
0
0
0 ft M
SLUDGE COSTS ;
153106
0
0
155233
337
3206
26052
5010
561
97394 i
19719
16834
2124
3190
0
11743
0
721
13066
13547 !
62124
0
o
o
0
12782
0
30060
641 |
0
0
802
o
0
23647
25852
0
0
281
0
11944
0
132991
2208
0
0
0
0
0 !
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
o
0
142496
0
0
0
0
222650
o
4453
89060
0
0
0
0
0
28499
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
41206
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
26827
41206
26827
29539
III-B13
-------
PSES COST DATA
DOS
544
345
546
547
548
549
550
351
352
553
554
555
356
357
558
559
560
361
562
363
564
365
366
367
568
569
570
371
PLANT
NUHSER
2810
2814
4001
4003
4006
4007
4008
4009
4014
4022
4023
4024
4026
4027
4032
4042
4043
4044
4046
4047
4048
4050
4052
4057
4064
4066
4070
4072
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
990103
1261967
993010
908142
1149492
0
361861
61007
758562
398832
1152601
1210395
887229
0
328468
1537378
0
554045
0
838784
0
923985
0
0
856557
936540
410771976
TOTAL
OU COSTS
0
0
290689
140177
247810
100162
130784
0
69268
32470
2282384
65926
550172
144097
130753
0
34584
1758984
0
96814
0
74097
0
76960
0
0
74494
171437
132422328
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
34197
42542
60731
19288
129546
0
1176
3464
6771
1240
50023
35244
29243
0
2744
19641
0
2982
0
2826
0
15243
0
0
4242
10905
11219132
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
22016
119104
16935
0
55830
0
1210
0
0
1117
58063
76673
2233
0
93794
191869
0
16749
0
3536
0
6588
0
0
1563
7258
20247968
0 ft N
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
4741
25651
5647
0
12024
0
261
0
0
240
12505
16513
481
0
20200
41322
0
5607
0
762
0
1419
0
0
337
1563
4605802
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
218197
89060
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
24046
0
133590
0
22265
93513
0
0
10031719
ANNUAL
MONITORING CO
26827
33782
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
•xssxxsssszxa
11068630
III-B14
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
1 387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
1
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CPU
CP SS AC CN BP
CP
SS BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SSU AC CN BP
CH
CP SS BP
CP
CP SS CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS BP
CH
SS BP
CPU AC CN BP
CP AC BP
CP CN BP
SS
CP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CP SS • CN BP
BP
CP BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP BP
CP SS BP
CP
SS
SS
CPU \
SS BP
CP SS BP
CP SS AC CN
BP
CP SS BP
III-B15
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
502
518
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
611
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
877
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP SS CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY "
SS CN
CPU SS AC CN BP
CP SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP
CP SS AC CN BP
CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
BP
SS
CP SS AC CN BP
CP
CP SS BP
CP BP
SS
CP SS BP
CP SS
CP SS
CP
CP SS BP
CPU BP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CPU SS
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CPU SS
SS
CP SS AC CN BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
III-B16
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED |
1
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS
CP SSU
CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
CP SS
CP
CP CN
CP
CP
SS
CP
CP
CP
CPU
CP CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP
SS
CP
SS
CP
CP
CP SS CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING .COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN
CP SS CN
CP SS
CP SS AC
CPU
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS
CP SS
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
,
1
CH
CH
CH
1
1
I
1
CH :
!
1
1
•
.
1
1
1
III-B17
-------
PLANT | BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
NUMBER |
1414 |
1438 | CP
1439 | CP
1446 |
1464 |
1494 | CP
1520 | CP
1522 | CPU
1524 | CP
1532 | CP
1569 | CP
1572 | CPU
SS
SS AC
AC
SS
SS AC
SS AC CN
SS
SS
BP
BP
BP
1593 | MONITORING -COSTS ONLY
1609 | CP
1616 | CP
1617 |
1618 |
1624 | CP
SS
SS
SS
SS
BP
1643 | MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1647 | CP
1650 | CP
SS
SS CN
BP
1656 | MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1670 |
1684 |
1688 | CP
1695 | CP
1698 |
1714 | CP
1717 | CP
1724 | CP
1753 | CP
1766 | CP
1769 | CPU
1774 | CP
1785 | CPU
1802 | CP
1839 | CP
1869 |
1877 | CP
1881 | CP
1890 | CP
1905 | CP
1910 | CP
1911 | CP
1928 | CP
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
SS AC
SSU
SS
SS
SS AC CN
CN
AC CN
SS
un
BP CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
III-B18
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
I
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED |
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY j
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING -COSTS ONLY i
SS BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS
CPU SS AC CN BP
CP
CP CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
CP SS BP
CN
CP BP
CP CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY i
CH |
CP
SS BP
CP SS
CP
CP SS
CP SS
CP BP
CP ss . •• ;
CP BP |
CP SS AC
CP SS BP j
CP AC BP
CPU SS AC CN BP :
MONITORING COSTS ONLY '•
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP CN
CP SS AC CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP ' !
SS BP
CP !
III-B19
-------
1
PLANT |
NUMBER |
-
2376 |
2390 |
2394 |
2399 |
2400 |
2419 |
2429 |
2430 |
2445 |
2447 |
2450 |
2461 |
2471 |
2474 |
2481 |
2527 |
2528 |
2531 |
2533 |
2536 |
2537 |
2541 |
2551 j
2556 |
2573 |
2590 |
2592 |
2606 |
2626 |
2631 |
2633 |
2660 |
2668 |
2673 |
2678 |
2680 |
2692 |
2693 |
2695 |
2701 |
2711 |
2735 |
2739 |
2763 |
2764 |
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CPU SS AC CN BP
CP SS BP
CP
CPU
CP SS
CP BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CPU SS CN BP
CP SS
CP CN
CP SS BP
SS
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS AC CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CP SS BP
CP
CH
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS , BP
CP
AC CH
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS BP
CP
CP SS AC
CPU
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
SS
SS
CP SS ' BP
CPU • CN
CP
CP
III-B20
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP
CP SS
SS
BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP
CP SS
CP
MONITORING
MONITORING
MONITORING
CP SS
CP
CP SS
SS
CP
BP
BP
BP
BP
COSTS ONLY
COSTS ONLY
COSTS ONLY
AC CN BP
CN BP
AC CN BP
CN BP
1
AC BP
NOTES:
CP - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
CPU - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
SS - STEAM STRIPPING
SSU - STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
AC - ACTIVATED CARBON
CN - CYANIDE DESTRUCTION .
BP - BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
CH - CONTRACT HAULING
III-B21
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
79
' 88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
158
161
162
163
166
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
232
240
244
249
257
262
266
276
283'
285
292
293
297
PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP
SS
CP SS
CP SS AC
SS
CP AC
SS
CP SS AC
CP SS
MONITORING
CPU SSU AC
SS
CP SS AC
CP SS AC
SS
CP SS
ss
CP SS
CP SS AC
.
CP SS AC
CP SS AC
AC
CP SS AC
AC
SS
CPU SS
MONITORING
CPU
CP SS
SS
CP SS
SS
CP SS
MONITORING
CP SS
CP AC
CP SS AC
CP SS
SS
SSU
CP SS
CPU SS AC
CP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
COSTS ONLY
CN BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
• .
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
CN BP
CN BP
CN BP
CN BP
BP
BP
BP
COSTS ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
COSTS ONLY
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
CN BP
CN BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
III-B22
-------
| PLANT | PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED |
| NUMBER | ...
299 CP
302 SS
| 310 SS
321 | SS
326 CP SS AC CN
334 CP SS
348 • MONITORING COSTS
354 CP SS AC
357
417 MONITORING COSTS
423 CP SS
428
430 CP SS CN
433 CP SS AC CN
438 SS
449 MONITORING COSTS
451
458 SS CN
468 CP SS CN
492
1 494 SSU
1
1 508
1 522 | CP SS AC CN
| 529 SS
1 543 SS
1
1 544
| 567 CP SS AC
| 592 SS
I 605
| 607 CP SS AC CN
| 618
| 624 CP SS
I 658 CP SS
1 661 CP SS AC CN
1 667
1 702 SSU
| 706 SS
1 717
1 720 SS
| 722 CP SS ' CN
| 724 | SS
| 743 CP SS AC
1 749 CP SS
| 768 | CP SS AC CN
| 771 CP AC
| 777
| 791 | SS
1 796 |
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
CH
ONLY
CH
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP CH
BP
pu
on
BP
BP
CM
on
BP
BP
on
BP
CH
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
CH |
797 1 CP SS AC CN BP I
814 | CP SS CN BP |
III-B23
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
830
845
846
862
874
880
887
905
912
917
929
931
932
944
958
975
976
987
988
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
1047
1052
, 1053
1057
1064
1069
1076
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1107
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
1191
1194
1195
PS
.....
CP
CP
CP
CP
CPU
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CPU
CP
CP
CP
CP
ES TECHNOLOGY
AC
SS AC
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS CN
SS
SS
SS
•
SS
SS
SS AC CN
AC
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS CN
SS
AC
SS
SS AC CN
SS
COSTED
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
•CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
III-B24
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
1249
1253
,1255
1264 |
1277
1310
1313 |
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351 |
1352 |
1356 |
1357 |
1361 |
1371 |
1386
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
| 1535
1539
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1595
1601
1608
1621
PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP SS
SS
AC
SS
CP
AC
SS
CP SS
SS
CP SS
SS
SS
CP SS AC
CP SS
CP SS
SS
CP SS
SS
CP SS AC
CP SS AC
CPU SS
CP SS AC
CP
CP SS
SS
CP SS AC
CP SS
SS
SS
CPU SS
CP SS
SS
CP SS AC
CP SS
SS
| CP SS AC
| CP SS
BP
BP
BP
BP
. BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
CN BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
CN BP
BP
CN BP
CN BP
BP
CN BP
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
CN
CN BP
CH
CH
CH
•
H
CH
CH
CH
CH
f* U
on .
CH
CH
'
III-B25
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
1622
1628
1645
1653
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1740
1742
1743
1744
1748
1751
1764
1773
1788
1793
1797
1801
1805
1808
1812
1826
1832
1833
1838
1843
1848
1853
1861
1876
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
ss
ss
ss
ss
ssu
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ssu
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
MONITORING
CP
CP
CP
CPU
CP
CP
CP
.
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss'
ss
AC
AC
AC
AC
CN
CN
' CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
COSTS
• CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
.
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
III-B26
-------
PLANT | PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
NUMBER
1
1993 | SS
2001 | SS
2004 | SS
2007 | CP SS AC CN
2018 | CP AC
1 2022 |
1 2033 |
| 2037 | CP SS
1 2050 |
1 2057 | SS
2070 | CP SS AC CN
| 2075 | CP SS
1 2080 I CP
I 2084 | SS
1 2093 1 CP SS
2108 | MONITORING COSTS
2117 | CP SS
1 2123 CP
| 2129 | CP SS AC • CN
1 2147 |
| 2176 | CP SS
1 2177 1 SS
1 2184 | SS CN
| 2191 |
1 2214 |
2232 | CP SS CN
1 2241 | CP SS
2243 | CP SS AC CN
i 2250 | CP SS
1 •
| 2253 |
I 2259 | CP SS AC
| 2261 | CP SS AC
I 2262 |
| 2288 | SS
1 2293 | SS
| 2300 | CP SS
| 2311 | CP SS
| 2318 | CP SS
I 2341 | CP SS
| 2346 | CP
| 2348 | CP AC .
| 2350 | CP SS AC
I 2359 | SS
I •
| 2402 |
I 2411 | CP
1 2426 | MONITORING COS1]
I 2432 | AC
I 2436 | CP
| 2442 | CP SS AC
| 2459 | CP SS
BP CH |
i
1
«n 1
BP 1
__ I
BP 1
BP 1
CH |
TH I
vn i
«T> 1
BP I
CH 1
UAl |
I
1
BP 1
I
1
|
i
I%T> 1
BP 1
n n 1
BP 1
ONLY I
T>Tl 1
BP 1
I
1
BP 1
CH I
*»•• i
nn 1
BP 1
i
1
BP 1
•B W
or
CH
BP
BP
BP 1
BP
/*U
wfl
BP
BP
fH
wll
BP CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
[S ONLY
_ _ i
BP 1
•» ** I
BP 1
III-B27
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
2462
2465
2469
2485
2487
2495
2498
2501
2507
2517
2521
2524
2539
2548
2565
2571
2578
2581
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2642
2646
2647
2666
2677
2679
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2794
2796
2805
2810
2814
4001'
4003
4006
4007
4008
PSES TECHNOLOGY
CP SS
CP SS AC CN
CP SS
CP SS
CP SS AC
CP SS
CP SS
CP SS
MONITORING COSTS
CP SS
CP SS
CP SS AC
CP SS AC CN
CP SS AC
MONITORING COSTS
CP
AC
CP SSU
CP SS
SS
CP SS
MONITORING COSTS
SS
CP SS AC CN
CP
SS
AC
CP SS
SS
CP SS
SS
CP SS AC CN
CP SS AC CN
SS
SS
AC
MONITORING COSTS
CP SS AC
CP SS
CP SS AC CN
SS
CP SS CN
COSTED
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP CH
ONLY
BP
CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
ONLY
CH
CH
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
CH
CH
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
III-B28
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
4009
4014
4022
4023
4024
4026
4027
4032
4042
4043
4044
4046
4047
4048
4050
4052
4057
4064
4066
4070
4072
PSES TECHNOLOGY
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
ssu
ss
SS AC
ss
SS AC
MONITORING
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
SS AC
SSU
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
CN
CN
CN
COSTS
CN
CN
CN
COSTED
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
NOTES:
CP - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
CPU - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
SS - STEAM STRIPPING
SSU - STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
AC - ACTIVATED CARBON
CN - CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
BP - BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
CH - CONTRACT HAULING
III-B29
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
221932
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORAim5M
SUBJECT: Erratum
Organic .
Source Category Regulation
FROM:
George M. Jett
The Record
TO:
..viewing the^ropo..^ ."jg-tUJJ-PP.gt -oo-ent
Organic
, Vol. Ill of the
December 6, 1991 proposal.
The attached erratum corrects these «rrors
-------
U.S. UsviroBHental Protection Agency
Industrial. Technology DlTision
Washington. B.C. 20460
Supplement to tho OCPSF Development Doetment
for
Effluent Umitationo Guidelines lew Source Performance Standards
and Pretreatment Standards for the Organic Chemicals and the
Plastics and Synthetic fibers Point Source Category
DIATOH
Dear Readers,
The following errors were Bade In the Supplement to the OCPSF Development
Document. Please correct the errors In your copies as per the corrections
Indicated.
1.
2.
3.
Section I. Page 1-3
In the fourth paragraph, on line 3, the word 'change' should be changed to
'changes'.
Section I. Page 1-4
a)
b)
In the second paragraph, line 7 should read as follows: "...the
costs to publicly-owned treatment vorka (POTVs) for similar levels
of reduction in their discharge of these...0
In the fifth paragraph, on line 3, 'Clean Water At' should be
changed to 'Clean Vater Act'
Section I. Page 1-5
In the first paragraph, line 1 should read as follows: •.. .of determining
whether to promulgate national category-wide PSES, EPA...".
Section I. C-l
a)
Pa»a 1-6
b)
In the fourth paragraph, line 9 ahould read as follows:
"...regulation initially controlled the discharge of up .to 63 toxic
pollutants and 3 conventional..."
In the fourth paragraph, on line 12, 'wastestreams' should be
changed to 'waste stresms'
• ;> r\ •* *5
it *.« 615 i «
-------
5. gtetion I. C-3. Page I-8 , , ;
a) In th« fourth paragraph, on line 5, 'wasteatraama' should be changed
to 'wast* atraaas'.
b) In the fifth paragraph, on lines 6 and 7, 'wasteitrnams' should be
changed to 'waste streams'. i
I
6. Section II. Page II-1
In the aecond paragraph, on linaa 5 and 6, the word 'Sctociitegory' ahould
be changed to 'Subpart'.
7t faction II. Paye II-4
a) In the firat paragraph, line 1 ahould read aa follows: "EPA has
proposed unchanged the subcatagory approach adopted in the
promulgated guideline."
b) In the third paragraph, on line 7, the word 'are' should be changed
to 'were'.
i
c) In the third paragraph, on line 8, the word 'notice' should be
changed to 'Notice'.
8. Section TT- Page II-5
a) In the firat paragraph, on line 2, the word 'are' ahould be changed
to 'were'.
b) In the first paragraph, line 3 ahould read as folletrs: "...limits
could not be met by auch plants now, nor could th«y be Bet at a
reasonable..."
9. geetton IT - Page II-6
a) In the first paragraph, on line 6, the numbers 'lifl-25' ahould be
changed to '118-125'.
b) In the first paragraph, line 8 ahould r<»ad as follows:
"...concentration (biodegradable food), biological systems will not
operate..."
i .
10. Section II. Page II-8
In the first paragraph, line 1 ahould read as follows: »,,..have ond-of-
pipe biological treatment in-place. In addition, EPA was able to..."
11. Section Il.'Paye 11-10
i .
a) In the third paragraph, on line 8, the number '23''should be changed
to '22'.
-------
12.
15.
b)
16.
g. r.v.al.d that Plant 2660 ^ *""*!"»-* OCMF
process vaatwatar and 1. In fact, * «aro diacharg. plant.
c)
In th. fourth paragraph, on lin. 3, ••* plant.' , .hmOd b.
•S3 elants'. This t* bacaua. Plant 2660
-------
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
b)
loading calculations in Section II. Thus, the following changes
should •'b* Bad* in tho second paragraph: ,
(i) On lines 1 and 4, '84 plants' should b* changed to '83 plants'
(ii) On line 6, '1,888 Ibs/yr should be changed to '1.931 lba/yr'
(iii) On line 10. '4,181 lbs/yr should be changed to '3,547 Ibs/yr'
(iv) On line 13, '6,069 lbs/yr should be changed to '5,478 Ibs/yr'
and '1,202 pounds' should be changed to '1,,22!> pounds'
In the third paragraph, line 5 should r»ad as follows:
•...availability of Subpart J. •
Section TI. Pages TT-22. 23. and 24
Corrections indicated in Item 11(c) changed additional loading
calculations in Section II. Thus, Table II-9 contained on pages 11-22 and
23 in your copy should be replaced by new pages 11-22 «nd 23 provided in
this package. Similarly, Table 11-10 contained en page H-24 should be
replaced by new page 11-24 provided in this package, j
Section II. Page 11-25 I
In the first paragraph, line 19 should read as follows:: "...establish a
fiODs floor would result in plants making undesirable treatment..."
Section TI. Page 11-26
In the first paragraph, on lines 9 and 10, the word 'control' should be
changed to 'controls'
Section III,
TII-1
a) In the first paragraph, on line 2, '23 plants' should be changed to
'22 plants'
b) In the fourth paragraph, line 7 should read as follows: "...Review
Brief, pp. 8-11). The Court concluded that detention time was a
key...*
1
Section III. A. Page III-2
a) In the second paragraph, line 1 should read as follows: "The
decision remanded limitations for 19 of the !20 BAT Subpart J
pollutants." . .
b) In the second paragraph, line 6 should read as follows: "...were
based on the remanded BAT Subpart J limits."
-------
22.
23.
24.
TTT
TTT-
in the fir.t paragraph, lln« 6 .hould r.ad « follow.: '...«:. .l-o .hovn
in T*bl« 1II-2."
ati-rlm TTT, Ti-1 fir TTT'8
B68)."
Table..."
25. Jrrrlrn TTT ft-?, f'f* TI1'8
a)
26.
21
Verification, 5..."
TTT
paragraph «hould be replaced by:
s
"
treatment i» as follows:
-------
• For Pollutant *34 (2,4.Diaethylphenol>, all BAT*ubpart J «* *SES
plants with raw vast• concentrations graatar than 10 »g/l will be
costed for an in-plant biological treatment system with a datantion
time of 413 hour*; plants with raw waste eonaeniarations above
trigger lavals but balow 10 ag/1 will »>• eosted fezr « in-plant
biological treatment systea with a datantion tiae of §4 hours.
. For Pollutant #55 (Naphthalene), all BAT Subpart J and PSES plants
with raw wasta concentrations graatar than 3 mg/l will be coated for
an in-plant biological traataent system with a dat«nt:Lon tiae of 413
hours- Plants with raw wasta concentrations above i:ri«ger levels but
below' 3 ag/1 will be costed for an ia-plant biological traataent
system with a detention tiae of 84 hours.
. For Pollutant *80 (Fluorene), all BAT Subpart J and PSES plants with
raw waste concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/l will b<» costed for an
in-plant biological treatment «ysta» with a detection tlae of 413
hours- plants with raw waste concentrations above ., 39 PSES plant, war. assigned a 130 ^ *\«"^» *^t£
4 BAT Subpart J and 117 PSES plants were assigned a 413 hour detention
time. The..."
TTT-14 and 15
Based on the inclusion of Plant 1293T and its associated detention ^ time,
Table III -8 on pages III -14 and 15 in your copy should be replaced by
pages III -14 and 15 provided in this package.
-------
so.
TTT-
Table
, 446, 1241. U50, 2206, 336, 1928 have
s
page ZZZ-16 provided in this package
31.
TTT
should read a. follow.: "The Agency
vith the revived in-plant..."
b)
..
plant* that were af£»ct«d by tb« n«w. . .
32.
TTT.
the Mcond paragraph, line 5 .hould read as follewt: -.. .modeled
..t. conltntlation. «d the revi.ed, higher-detention ti...
only 25..."
33.
tine."
TTI.
time of 24 and 143 hour* were incorrectly
34.
35.
36.
package.
Section TV.
TV-7
In the aecond paragraph, line 19 ahould re. «»
reconditioning proceeee. are almo.t never 100 percent efficient
Section TV.
IV-8
in the fourth paragraph, line 1 should read «:foilov,« -A, stated in the
above sections, the Fifth Circuit remanded the NSPS and...
,
-------
n-3
TOENTY-TVO DIRECT &XSCHA&CE BAT SUBPAM J FLIRTS
OBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PLANT NUMBER
76
105
114
260
373
611*
657
663
664*
814
877
913
1249
1569
1618
1774
1785
2030
2073
2590
2735
2767
'*' - NOTE: In the previous version of Table II-3, plant number* 709, 991, and
2606 were incorrectly included under BAT Subpart J plants. These plants
use contract hauling as their method of discharge and hence they do not
cone under BAT Subpart.J plants. In addition to this, two BAT Subpart J
plants, i.e., plant numbers 611 and 664 were incorrectly excluded from
Table II-3. Thus, in this version of Table II-3, plant nunbers 709, 991,
and 2606 have been deleted and plant numbers 611 and 664 have been added.
11-12
-------
c)
conprehenaively deaeribe the source... .
in the third paragraph. on line 9 th. word
-------
1DU.
1
2
3
4
5
4
7
•
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
a
45
44
47
48
49
1
3
**'
**'
*r
M
*9
*ir
*12
+14
*u*
*»•
34
»•
39
35'
94*
97
51
99
40
43*
44*
48
70
71
72
73'
74
75
74
77
78
•0*
•1
•4*
ADDITIONAL
KJ»
man
COUNT
7 '
•
14
10
7
7
7.
10
I
7
7
7
5
9
4
7
13
f
2
9
7
0
9
1
4
4
4
* 4
19
10
4
6
7
4
4
4
'4
7
• 9
7
4
7
7
ANNUM. LOAD1I
JIT J 8ROND IA1
rat
ANNUAL
• 8AW
LOAD
17991.02
37844.48
95570.35
114244.51
13802.84
M45.80
•2814.34
184319.23
471.25
294483.41
80144.01
134173.94
31092.29
103073.30
9044.34
1444.43
191449.35
124091.71
94354.99
147030.58
3234.54
30744 .39
10485.31
1547.72
145.23
254554.32
710444.40
.
1U42.90
121453.44
2252.95
9293.44
9708.21
2999.10
979285.47
14342.39
10893.25
9829.00
39755.90
382.40
132.22
112.83
197.94
2243.09
5077.49
5248.24
17203.90
17255.44
2914.17
ISSOISCNAMi
r OUOMIT i i
22 PLANTS
cynor
LOAD
123.48
•24.59
140.21
1214.99
124.92
S35.2S
200.00
27153.74
124.92
119.98
167.52
2129.84
857.58
1654.89
132.99
324.24
314.80
147.52
1140.24
1045.45
234.11
123.44
194.17
291.45
143.40
3437.90
•37.58
,
125.44
145.92
2*5.01
908.94
•15.99
244.29
238.49
712.34
221.41
929.41
129.27
101.79
101.79
101.79
101.79
123.48
233.29
123.48
123.12
.123.48
135.83
9 Wl NAT •
IMITATIONS
•ATLOAD
I
•2.93
421.82
226.33
OS. 14
•4.36
311.98
113.94
1979.19
•4.34
68.16
124.94
124.94
134.82
223.29
163.54
217.40
•4.94
124.96
112.54
834.94
196.76
•2.93
195.62
152.79
46.08
294.15
634.82
.
•4.89
97.94
190.84
340.79
412.12
143.58
197^5
419.18
148.42
355.03
•6.96
48.14
68.16
68.16
68.14
•2.93
192.74
•2.93
82.54
82.93
91.22
mum t
«ina»
A
IB.9B
4J11.SZ4
2B.2M
2!>1.6>M
UJ4.918
49E2.41O
2110.01)4
W&J&9
Ii4.3
-------
MICAL
CM
SO
SI
52
S3
Si
ss
Si
S7
*«*
***
119
120
»•
122
124
121'
A901TIQKAI AHNUU.
ttAMTS
PUMT
court
10
u
TMU 11-7
s DISBAND rr OAT OUBVAIT
•AT UMIT I LIMITATIOn
t 22
AAV
UMB
40HW.M
97372.00
1*9932.92
VMM
IWD7.39
4MSU.1S
217302 J4
4OV74JO
•901M2.44
LOW
WS.B
2«2.fiS
220.11
W17.M
f129.10
1M4.S9
242S.42
•ATLOAP
I
U1.fi
2.01
1.7*
kM
4M2.S3
•ATtffitt
J
2J7.U
au.S3
1M.S2
MTUtt
4 •
•ATLMD I
7l.t15
•4.457
25.753
•W4.A9
1259.2*
U24J3
MU2.IS 11*09.99 11*99.99
mOi.M 4&aJt 4901.93
•.000
0.000
•.000
MHMH
«e^ja
* VoUttli pollutants trith Kvttitloas testd wi fttw stripping.
»•• - NOTE: In the prtvlous v«r«lon of this t*bl«
plcnt zxumbcrc 709, 991, and 2606 w«r« Incorrectly
included under BAT Subpart J plants for loading
computations. These plants use contract hauling
as their method of discharge and hence they do
not come under BAT Subpart J plants. In addition
to this, two BAT Subpart J plants, i.e., plant
numbers 611 and 664 were incorrectly excluded
froa the list of BAT Subpart J plants for loading
computations. Thus, plant number* 709, 991, and
2606 vere deleted and plant cuabtri 611 and 664
were added to the list of BAT Subpart J plants to
compute the loadings. Since chemicals marked '•'
in this table vere reported by at least one of
the three plants deleted or two plants added, the
plant count, and the corresponding loading values
changed. These changes have been incorporated in
the above table.
AU DATA IN MUMDS Kt YCAR
-------
SABLE ZZ>I
•ADDITIONAL ANNUAL LOADINGS DISCHARGED AT CDMLEHT 1X7SLS
FROM THE FOUR POLLUTANTS UNREGULATED BY BAT SUBPART J UMmTIOHS
FOR 22 PLANTS
rOTOTCAT
NUMBER
24
31
35»
36*
PLANT
COUNT
6
6
6
6
ANNUAL
1AV LOAD
41614.32
31505.36
12274.09
4420.70
89814.46
CURRENT
! LOAD
123.12
! 221.61
611.17
1377.72
2333.63
ALL DATA IN POUNDS PER YEAR
NOTE- In the previous version of thi« cabl«
plant numbers 709, 991, «nd 2606 vtr* ineorr«ctl>
tncludad und«r BAT Subpart J pl«xt» for loading,
coBPutmcions. Th««« pl*nt« tu* contract bauli&s;
as thtir »«thod of dl«charg« and hanet A«y do
not corn, under BAT Subpart J plants. Xn addition
to this, two BAT Subpart J plants, i.a., plant
nuabtrs 611 and 664 w«r« isicorroetly •xeludad
from th« list of BAT Subpart 3 plants for loading
computations. Thus, plant mabsrs 709, 991, and
2606 ware deleted and plant numbers 611 and 664
were added to the list of BAT Subpart J plants te>
compute the loadings. Since chemicals Barked ••'
in this table were reported by at least one of
the three plants deleted or two plants added, th«
plant count, and the corresponding loading value*
changed. These changes have been incorporated in
the above table.
11-20
-------
B1TIOUL
PUNTS
tOU II-9
LOADIROS DISOUUMB IT SAT RURMRT
•AT OURMRT I LIMITATIONS
MR a HARTS
OBS
1
2
3
4
5
4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
14
17
1*
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
27
2*
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
34
37
3*
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
44
47
4*
49
CRDHCAL
mtma
1
3^
*4*
jl f
* 9
*«*
*13
*14
*°!
jw **
i «M
* 29
*S°.
T 33
34
4(38*
39
*42
* 44*
ft 52
55*
$4*
57
5*
59
40
45*
44*
48
70
71
72
73
74
75
74
77
7*
•0
81
84
HART
COURT
11
22
50
22
18
§
9
19
31
4
15
15
15
9
U
10
10
»
10
13
4
9
S3
12
4
22
14
0
29
14
9
1
11
4
47
17
14
9
14
7
7
7
7
10
19
11
13
11
12
RAW
LOAD
1*543.43
440997 JO
4344*4.17
115992.59
194** J2
5044.49
I2S19.I1
1143043.88
1813.91
204494 J5
i2415J4
i25347.04
125448.20
144405.02
8917.15
1445.08
191479.85
SS3490J3
54425.44
W7042.84
3234.71
30747.04
(17147.97
2204.30
145.30
472734.17
9057*0.92
.
SS1SJ*
1413494.27
3044.11
5594 J9
•092.42
2999.24
14395878.48
17049.22
14512.55
24502.48
47707 J9
444.24
1f2 J3
157.74
242.87
2335.05
9984.41 .
5114.97
20701.21
19847.49
3315.50
CURRENT
LOAD
10*8 J5
4774.49
1249.22
1753.12
257 JO
535.40
100.0*
175*3.40
532.73
119.9*
2«9 J4
2U1J1
2331.54
3099.25
1511.29
324.44
514.18
451.15
1U4.41 .
2044.42
234.12
123.48
444.41
472.55
143.42
4221.78
12*2.29
.
3224.91
491.71
505.49
701.23
1009.45
244 JO
2417.01
907.47
548.91
1084.97
312.07
1*5.41
101.79
144.49
U4.49
195 .33
404.05
311.51
4*4.35
201.00
474J7
lATLOAD
I
•4.15
1740.53
541.14
257 JS
141 .84
112 JO
113.97
2173.74
197.14
48.1*
159.00
177.07
1222.9*
471.8*
7*9.83
217.4*
84.98
205 J5
112.94
•37.12
154.77
82.93
299.75
182.00
44.10
534.72
.744.92
.
224.59
140.44
239.01
410.10
498.84
143.39
400.82
544.92
231.91
432.84
134.20
71.14
48.14
71.14
71.14
85.92
255.15
. 107.27
* 180.77
105.20
118.00
OATLOAD
*
•4J5
1740.53
•84 J7
Ttt.B
257 JO
452.97
200.0*
1442 3*
197.14
119.9*
159.90
177.07
1222.94
713.79
947.9i
S24J9
151.77
205.35
124.23
•37.12
234.12
•2.93
453.73
112.00
44.10
254.49
744.92
a
224.59
491.71
170.72
410.10
932.48
143.59
400.82
310.14
147.49
241.59
04.20
71.14
48.14
71.14
71.14
85.92
255.85
107.27
100.77
105.20
107.27
•ATLQAD J
• 1ATLOAD I
0.000
0.000
345.207
510J82
115.440
148.471
tt.114
•511.472
0.000
51.821
0.000
0.000
0.000
304.911
. 157.225
108.933
44.784
0.000
11.291
0.000
77J50
0.000
153.974
0.000
0.000
•210.030
0.000
.
0.000
SI .065
•46.288
0.000
433.448
0.000
0.000
•34.782
-44.420
•191.254
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
•10.727
ALL OATA IN KURDS Ptt TIM
U
02023
11-22
-------
ICAL
CES
so
91
12
IS
M
53
U
57
sa
99
*.»•
* •*•
* if
*•
lit
120
121*
122
12*
128
ADDITIONAL
HAITI
man
ourr
20
S3
1*
It
12
11
11
11
e
17
TABU II-t
IMDIMS SISGBAMD tT SAT
•AT MPAIT I L1HITAT10KS
sj MAVTS
LOAD
«11M.t2
S592M.M
17447T.82
11242.31
73145.20
S07700.95
onarr
iflAO
•ATtOAD
I
'AIT J
MTUMO
J
•ATLfltt J
• 1ATIMC t
Volatile pollotants with Hsrftatfcns tesetf on staav strippiig.
• NOTE: In the previous version of thin table, the
loading values for the listed chemicals were
computed for 84 direct discharge plants without
end-of-pipe biological treatment in-place. Among
these 84 plants Plant 2660 (identified in Table
VII-42. page VII-132, 1987 Development Document)
was incorrectly identified as direct discharge
OCPSF facility without «nd-of«pipe biological
treatment. Additional investigations revealed
that Plant 2660 does not discharge any OCPSF
process wastewater and is in fact, a zero
discharge plant. Therefore, Plant 2660 was
deleted from the list of "84 plants". Since
Plant 2660 was one of the plants reporting the
chemicals Barked '•', the plant count and the
corresponding loading values for these chemicals
changed. These changes have been incorporated in
the above table.
AU MTA IN MUNBC TO YXAK
002030
II-23
-------
TABLE 11-10
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL LOADINGS DISCHARGED AT CD1MRT
FROH THE FOUR POLLUTANTS UNREGULATED IT 1AT SUBPARI J 1BCTATIOHS
FOR §3 PLANTS
CHEHICAL
NUHBER
•mi
24
31
35"
36*
PLANT
COURT
^mm
14
6
12
10
ARNUAL
BAV LOAD
42126.63
31506.97
17734.20
5600.85
ALL DATA IH POUNDS PER YEAR
CURRENT
LOAD
175.37
221.62
1261.10
1889.21
••' - ROTE: In th« prvrious v»r
-------
SABLE XII-4
TECHNOLOGY CORRECTIONS
frApurt J Plants:
PLANT NO.
••^M^HI
488
TECHNOLOGIES COSTED AT
PROMULGATION'"
TECHNOLOGIES COSTED FOR
REVISED BASELINE COST'"
CP, SS, PB, AC, CN
£.
T«
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
AC, SS. CN, PB
Monitoring Only
CP. AC, SS, CN. PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
SS, PB
CP, AC. SS, CN, PB
SS, PB, CH
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC. SS, CN, PB
CH
CH ]
CH Cost - $396,317
SS
CP, AC, SS. CN, PB
Monitoring Cost-$26,827
Monitoring Only
CP. AC, SIS, CN, PB
Monitoring Only
CP. AC. «S. CN. PB
- Chemical Precipitation
. steam Stripping
- Activated Carbon
• Cyanide Destruction
- In-Plant Biological
- Contract Hauling
CP
SS
AC
CN
PB
CH
For Plant # 293 cost estimates at promulgation (1987 Dev. IDoc. pp. VIII-
B46) ve?e b.sldon «t.« stripping and tn-Junt biological but .hould have
also included activated carbon and cyanide destruction (3,987 Dev. Doc. pp.
VIII-B68).
III-9
-------
i I.
I
i
i 8
i!
I
t
M 2
^ ^ i
I
««•><<
M •> C
h
! i
I
1st
•». M t» 9
SKS-
N m <•
M « e
i
w v
li!
•4 m <•
« •> i
«^
.1
c t
,
1
inn
Jllli
i S =
SfS
*. a
i!
I!
e a
i!
li
II
I!
xs
•I
ii
f
i!
1
i2033
-------
1
|
2
K
i •
I 1
! B
H *>
i i
S i
M
E
S
Ii
•••••I
8
i
*M .
§
I
i^
•
*i
2
|1
8!
H
I|
=1
ii
* *5
M
Ij
1 *
II 1
£
«v
S
Pollut
•BBBBBBi
12 Plant Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
" i» *
•
• MM
tt «4 •)
M «•» e
e e r»
•
»>••»>
S£|
•4
• "
1
anvanaai
I
12 Plant Report
SOB Supplemental Quaat
Verification Report
"MM
e
" S S
o e «
sss
«N «» *n
•»* **
?
S
1 •
1
BBBBBBBl
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
** « **
in
o
« si
O O M
x m •
8 5s
t
j
i! S
I
BBMBBH
=
|
Sot •ofplonantal ntal Qwaal
12 Plant Roport
Torlf leatlon Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
CSS-,*
a e-
e o
S2SSS
*****!*
• e> M m a!
S M * 2 **
^
1
S
S|
1
•aaavai
Verlf loatlon Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
• 2 •
•» S m
ss°
• 0°
• mm
sss
« • *
9 ^ ^
sss
14
««
s
• *
• 1
1
i
2
1
1
4
1
I
1
! : . • 1
•t &
J, -
•
1
V
1
1
1
1
tt
i
s
1,
J
'!
, -
\J ^ <
[•2034
-------
sou xzx-t
fUn-ST-ffUK
f M tta iUt •£ UI Suh|>Mt J
• riant *u«k*r» *S7
Plants;
Th. toclutlon of pl»t 12«T l» eta
rf.t.ntlon tl>« «..llt«.nt for th.«.
lnelu.ton .£
129JI to th.
0r th...
iaiat !• MMatod
tht
ehMC* tht
XIX-16
1,02035
-------
TABLE III-11
REVISED LAND REQUIREMENT ESTIMATES TOR
IK-PLANT BIOLOGICAL EREATMENT SYSTEMS
REVISED LAHD REQUIREMENTS FOR
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
A. Small Facilities: Flow < 0.5 MOD
FLOW (MGD)
0.001
0.005
0.010
0.050
0.10
0.5
td - 84 hours*
Land Requirement
in Acre*
0.075
0.075
0.100
0.200
0.275
0.350
td - 130 hours*
Land Requirement
in Acre*
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.250
0.375
1.25
td • 413 hours*
Land Requirement
in Acre*
0.075
0.150
0.200
0.500
0.850
3.25
P T-arg* Facilities: Flow 2 0.501 MGD
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.2
2.8
4.1
5.3
7.7
10.1
12.5
3.1
3.9
5.7
7.5
10.9
14.4
17.9
8.9
11.7
17.3
22.9
34.2
45.1
56.2
* td - detention time i
i
NOTE: Detention times of 24 and 143 hours were incorrectly included.
correct detention times are 84 and 413 hours.
The
111-32
-------
•?
:
I
is
«i
8 •
» 2 r
i h
i ;?
W * *
1 ~~
S i is
i Si'
i « * 8
1 8. aB
|
•5
i
!
!
j
•
i
*
|
^5
««
i
*
7E
£
i
1
f
•
£
»»
1
1
1
!
1 . |]
I |! I
*' i! !
i If !
1 ii I
i 1
i ;! [
i !l
1 1
1 £
- - 2
ii
E
•
»
i ! 1
\ | |
1* !'l
si! |«|
18 S i t
i il1
* Mi • :
Ii til i i
s s
1 2 i
H
1 11
12}
'•f
ipt
i Hli
5
1
* •
•
}j
T* Jf
•ft«T pnAKt MMTMlM. <
•trMM l> rtcyct«d. tfc* Ml
ln)Mt«l «r Mnt t* Win.
^
•
•
i
•
1?
Ii
il
~.'\
i
•
d
; S!
1 Jii
S
1
! i
i !
91
§
£
X
i
i
i
•
!
i
i
§'
•
i
i
j
I
t
2
1
A
i
1
N N
A
- i
• •» s
ft i
* ;
1 :
!£
tM
i 1
A
'
i
f
41
' 1
B
0
1
u
1
S
s
s
il
1
iZ
1
0
6
i
i
i
•nltrlU • 0170-01
i
§
a
I
*
g 2
IV-12
G&2037
-------
h
il
I
*
'
8S
&.
•
I
h
!i .
|« "8
h
I!
«»
•
« •
''
*A
in
SII
II
l\
fa
•At I
II
!!l I
!
•*
ll-
{• r..
.«fi
w
I
| !
H il! H h
MI!
l-*it
III*?
r s
ii
I5
S*
i
-1
il
*f *
1!
Hi!
i
I
I
I I
i ?
! I
1
! i
i i
^
* I
e §
£ C
i §
6 I
il
s
^
s
^ s
• •
s s
• •
11
i 4
it
HI ttl
U V
8
i.
*
j
•
s 2
•
1
•
||
s *
21
^ *
!!
»>
8
i
g
w
1
»
8
1
•
IV-13
I
i
2
i
H
2
1
tf
!i
n
I
•
**
i-.
H! it! HI !i« li iiHiil Hi lii
2
s'
l
2
i
-------
E
St
i
i
S * a
c : 11
S IS a
s *iS
t 8^5
I S
I
i
1
* fit 1!
* £|I M
Mi Ii
?lfc
! VI
U
ii
IS
i
1
!
• v
i!
• 5 * * Hi
1 55: at*
I
^ ^ * • •
ft! {!
h
:-1
Si
i *
1
i
1
i
i i
"I
S * • «
I! ?!
"e -1
if ii !
1
i
;!!
'}
ii
i!
i
!
1
ill It! ill .1
•
IV-1A
.(jfi2039
-------
c
h
fl
i
£ i
II
i lf
i f
E = -
i II
S
!
8
K
8
8
E
1
£*
• o
i
§
H
• *»
. S
H
HI
!H
fii
it*
lh
i
. §
8
i
I
i z
i
§8
•Her product eeparatlen. 2 mn-tq. turn* f
tflffertM arecenet art recycled, tht rtwlnl
I
**
1
c
V
L
g
^*
[I
ii
a
, i
; fii ! i]i ,
! ill! 1, f M
;- I1 if,' HM
if c 1 * 5 Ifl I1-; I
li s * 1 * *|8 »*lf l
Ft feB**, z|s I"!5 f
: Il^li ill **Sf *
« |l « ! *5lfi
if sk.:^. *|2 *"*SZ 1
: f^sjl f!l !*|t :
5: ^|-rii irk 55*1 *
if ifiJ2- 1:1 ;ssi i
c £
§ § I :
M «> a> ;
1 • I
I 5
>> »*» **
f . £ |X
•f aa »
* •* i*? s?
• i -i! i'i
? « s i • I •
* t 5 I - • *
i? ! m ii
*S 1 fls*«
!! i li; ii
^
•H'
it
Ifi1
i!il
:f!i
ii|!
jf!|
a : 1?
8
o
§
ft
S
r .
j ?s
CMerefer*. Carton
iwiatie Jiciai
(••••alnuattr)
(ftfrtacratney Hcut
(M'toller MoMdM
„
J
I
|
1
IV-15
002040
-------
= Ii
I M
- j i -
i eJl
5 J*l
h
&
1
I
8
i
••>
i
s
i
t
j
Mtarlal
ara
!i !~
claaj raMlnlfia,
ara Mnt
S 5 r - 5
il in
I
i
9
t
I
1
;»* Ji. -
hi II. i
I
*
I
nn
If,
*I-
ill
l = f
i'l
•I11!
!!i
J. r a c
= i« s
8
I
I
S S
My nan-a*. itraaa la racyelad altar
dUtltlatlm. tka rwalnfna taq.ttrtw)
directly dtackarftd afttr trcatatnt.
s
<
s
«
3
J!
i
J
If
iff
ili
I
••>
2
s
l
!!
01.2041
IV-16
-------
•
i
i;
f !
I fl
s Is
s : If
S «fi »
f ill
i » i s
§
-------
&
I
K
5
I
i
K
8
I
i
••
*•
•S
e !
s s
* e
: if
-
i
*
n
8
I
r -
11
i!
I
i
5
1
f
5 s J
ii i
IV-18
-------
APPENDIX IH-A
REVISED IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES V» 1987 AS PROMULGATED
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
( COST ESTIMATES ARE PRESENTED IN 1982 DOLLARS )
U 1^2044
-------
»•*»»****••
1
(PLANT
(NUMBER
76
105
114
260
£11
657 *
814
877
913
1249
1569
1618
1785
2030 *
2073
2590
2735
2767
(TOTALS
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION
BAT ( DIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COSTI
154,264
180,903
155,036
114,259
33,879
3,496,321
1,477,409
122,601
239,832
124,507
120,658
137,779
306,454
192,349
335,009
27,215
4,283,634
66.487
11,568,596
•»••**•••*»»*
0 & M COST
36,383
37,838
36,426
34,201
31,778
259,390
122,703
34,650
. 40,962
34,753
34,545
35,478
44,306
38.456
45,682
31,778
312,359
32,015
1,243,703
LAND COST
4,868
39.407
8,040
6,687
1.226
118,314
25.259
2.490
11.739
6,739
2.326
5,373
9,305
9.536
16.500
3,760
153,746
4,494
429,810
XN-FLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
BAT ( DIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
•»••••»»••*•••••••*•••*••••******•••**
CAPITAL COST)
••••••••»•••
252,052
297,579
253.372
382,240
93.292
11,304,160
4,762.754
415,790
397,900
201.116
194,525
223.839
510.552
317.109
558,577
73,128
14,018,248
102,017
34,358,248
0 4 M COST
»•••••••••*•
37,518
39,032
37,562
38,190
34,628
551,323
257,920
38,734
42,261
35,808
35,588
36,571
45.696
39,673
47,104
34,628
666,365
32,824
2,051.424
LAND COST
6,889
60,439
11,405
22,560
1,449
168,975
25,775
8,903
21,010
8,629
2,938
7,205
19,266
15,106
36,112
3,616
227,194
4,574
652,046
PLANTS HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY OMITTED F*OM THE BAT STJBPART J PLANT LIST
III-Al
1)02045
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
10
22
33
49
51*
52
72*
79**
93
94
110*
119
120
122
143
149*
161*
163
196*
199
203
206
212
214
220
221
240
249
257
262*
266
283
292
i 293*
297
302
310
321
326*
334
354
430**
433*
438
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COSTI
38,458
111,459
1,796,964
176,242
123,508
51,292
35,667
52,999
100,445
44,225
32,594
35,088
48,027
74,706
34,492
53,307
187,252
51,421
165,699
152,707
31,919
74,515
33,247
w ^ 1 ^ ,
245,972
41,678
266,317
2,388,306
75,705
261,328
28,097
29,728
1,929,496
102,992
188,988
25.278
99,926
84,702
31,218
59,507
43,402
115,682
3,070,808
84,169
121,480
0 & M COST
31,778
34,052
144,644
37,585
34,699
31,778
31,778
31,779
33,479
31,778
31,778
31,778
31,778
32,296
31,778
31,779
38,182
31,778
37,010
36,298
31,778
32,289
31,778
41,278
31,778
42,315
184,789
32,335
42,063
31,778
31,778
153,681
33,609
38,275
31,778
33,452
32.717
31,778
31,846
31,778
34,277
230,778
32,693
34,589
LAND COST
3,663
1,467
45,448
38,506
6,697
2,945
3,609
17,371
1,532
16,295
2,624
5,893
1,336
20,523
1,342
4,060
9,478
4,003
8,355
2,718
15,244
5.059
949
4,195
16,021
3,135
65,816
2.129
13,010
15,138
1,967
68,756
6,208
3,573
3,488
1,966
3.135
15,213
3,664
1,413
5,629
114,330
1,758
1,758
IK-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES 1
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES |
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS ) |
( 1982 dollur* ) |
................... .............. 1
CAPITAL COST)
54,933
371,105
S, 756, 909
289,619
419,472
76.348
98,837
155,182
159,927
77,934
89,340
97,034
70,871
231,276
48,395
156,219
692,373
76,565
597,149
249.389
44,179
230,584
56,599
510,031
117,869
555,621
30,377,381
141,410
1,039,118
75,749
40,612
6,173,704
164,284
700,162
33,432
159,038
268.057
43,035
177,408
76,316
225,074
41,028,499
266,068
195,933
0 & If COST
32,470
38,007
304, (BIO
38,769
38,793
32,475
34,628
1I4.752
34,452
32, 901
14,628
34,628
132,470
35,724
32,470
34,761
42,867
32,475
41,516
37,429
32,470
35.714
32,901
43,392
34,628
44,488
1,135,834
33,694
47,264
34,628
32,470
323,893
34,592
42,975
32,470
34,424
36,309
32,470
34,976
32,901
35,886
1,448 ,,808
36,276
35 ,,635
LAND COST |
j
3,352 |
4,849 |
51,447 |
58,262 |
24,094 |
2,814 |
4,470 |
30.550 |
1,793 |
17,839 |
2,996 |
7,192 |
1,261 |
48.490 |
1,218 |
7,177 |
47,864 j
3,827 |
38,221 |
3.827 |
13.791 |
11.926 |
950 j
10,761 j
22,809 |
8,448 |
346,162 |
2,893 |
85,770 |
15087 |
1.779 |
80,500 |
7,339 |
18,179 |
3,052 |
2,297 |
8,238 |
13,758 |
7,124 |
1,537 |
9,403 |
664,833 j
4,595 |
2,226 |
III-A2
GC2046
-------
• 7""™"wlHT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES | IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES |
, IN"PU^ AT reOMULCATION BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES 1
n**JSSf%&*> \ "» 1 < l982 a*11*™ > j
j^ER jCApiTAL'cOSTroTM'c^
458~r"2,164,647 | 169,654 |
468 | 42,553 | 31.778 |
492 I 36,508 | 31,778 |
494 1 320,686 | 44,996 |
522 | 135,103 | 35.331 |
543 1 64,898 | 31,970 |
567 1 27,215 | 31.778 |
592 | 86,403 | 32,794 |
607* 1 69,725 | 32,117 |
624 I 2,538,969 | 194,961 |
658 1 171,026 | 37,301 |
661 1 26,848 1 31,778 |
702 1 45,804 | 31,778 |
706 I 42,119 | 31,778 |
717 | 254,220 | 41,701 |
722 1 250,039 | 41,487 |
724 I 31,919 | 31,778 |
743 1 45,025 | 31,778 |
749 1 83,680 | 32,671 |
768* I 24,200 | 31,778 |
771 1 118,360 | 34,421 |
791 | 40,308 | 31,778 |
797* 1 35,667 | 31,778 |
814* | 1,477,397 | 122,703 |
830** I 23,508 | 31,778 |
862 | 130,517 | 35,080 |
887 I 222,526 | 40,060 |
905 | 31,919 | 31,778 |
929 I 25,278 | 31,778 |
944** | 26,279 | 31,778 |
958 1 80,319 | 32,524 |
975 1 64,898 | 31,970 |
976 1 177,105 | 37,632 |
987 | 24,200 | 31,778 |
992 1 75,274 | 32,318 |
997 | 37,318 | 31,778 |
1006 | 34,492 | 31,778 |
1018 | 118,149 | 34,409 |
1047** | 180,385 | 37,810 |
1052 | 104,729 | 33.699 |
1053 | 42,294 | 31,778 |
1057 | 23,024 | 31,778 |
1083 1 38,859 | 31,778 |
1085 | 28,933 | 31,778 j
358.718 | 27,017,425 | 1,033,377 1.«00,014
1,286 | 61,730 | 32,470 | 1,191
2 669 101,464 | 34,628 | 3,376 |
5 493 534,507 46,402 | 11,697 |
1 183 266.554 37.036 | 13.029 j
1 660 196,214 | 35,213 | 3,478
'944 45,138 | 32,901 | 893
3,844 274,412 | 56,412 | 10,272
3 393 213,338 | 35.455 | 7.560
98 792 8,125,233 | 412,320 | 129,133 I
7 721 344 357 39,158 | 15,968 I
840 44 447 32,901 | 793 |
1,315 131,256 | 34,631 j 2,036 j
3,308 | 119,288 | 34.628 | 4,754
6 073 422.301 | 43.021 | 11,241
5 497 415.214 | 42.802 | 10,078
3 138 87.274 | 34,628 | 3.315
904 65.850 | 32.470 | 844
1,752 131,280 | 33,573 | 1.917
3 552 64,292 | 34,628 | 3,552
6 485 190,590 | 35,457 | 8,122
2 728 113.479 | 34,628 | 3,770
1 349 98,837 | 34,628 | 1,671 |
25:259 17.168;297 | 718,327 J 101,282 j
5,816 | 62/290 | 34,629 | 5,816
6 990 256.720 | 36.763 | 12,445
2 956 368.502 | 41.331 | 5,071
1 329 54 056 32,901 | 1,316 |
15',232 33 432 32.470 | 13.328 j
3 552 70.364 | 34.628 | 3,552 |
5,284 125548 33.410 | 3.701 j
1 180 196.214 | 35.213 | 2,472
i 981 291,094 | 38,818 | 6,039
1 216 64,292 | 34,628 | 1,056
1,645 116.953 | 33.178 | 1.738
3 640 104.007 | 34,628 | 4,695
954 48,395 | 32,470 | 866
2.217 190.228 | 35.445 | 2.773
9 166 661,727 | 42.440 | 44,914
1 403 167.257 | 34.688 | 1.670
368 119.851 | 34.628 | 531
840 37.316 | 32.901 | 735
2,704 | 55,597 | 32,470 | 2,477
3 532 48,380 | 32,901 | 3,410 |
III-A3
UG204?
-------
1
1
[PLANT
| NUMBER
1086
1091*
1094**
1117
1126*
1163
1172
1173
1181
1191*
1194**
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220**
1223
1224
1234**
1236
1237
1249
1264*
. 1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356*
1357
1361*
1426
1432
1437
1450
1478*
1504
1507**
1528
1534
IN -PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
CAPITAL COSTI
142,108
136,001
138,306
24,423
191,682
96,736
204,121
23,024
90,364
56,810
33,183
35,088
40,308
73,357
276,642
35,667
37,843
178,425
62,529
180,579
54,570
124,507
28,097
168,246
147,924
21,995
22,649
33,941
68,240
75,499
45,025
21,995
35,088
37,843
126,379
158,530
90,067
159,204
21,995
27,215
75,274
205,139
29,014
54,511
0 & M COST
35,716
35,381
35,507
31,778
38,420
33,292
39,087
31,778
32,980
31,806
31,778
31,778
31,778
32,245
42,834
31,778
31.778
37,703
31,909
37,820
31,785
34,753
31,778
37,149
36,035
31,778
31,778
31,778
32,068
32,327
31,778
31,778
31,778
31.778
34.855
36,617
32,966
36,654
31,778
31,778
32,318
39,141
31.778
31,785
LAND COST
32,080
4,391
7,747
520
7,130
4,137
7,553
15,232
5,371
1,108
3,570
1,767
2,728
5,015
13,776
959
1,611
2,413
3,210
8,100
17,580
6.739
3,530
2.952
3,413
944
1,216
1,339
4,555
1,280
1,429
3,552
3,599
2,688
2,334
8,193
5,360
1,944
6,968
1,328
1,645
8,493
3,532
1.403
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISED DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollar* )
CAPITAL COST)
231,251
470,792
480,384
64,938
712,282
313,614
768,788
60,899
171.774
168,132
91,146
49,374
113,479
226,393
460,246
98,837
53,916
293,347
187,907
365,245
81,864
201,116
75,748
275,959
241,205
35,416
29,242
93.483
208,043
117,337
128.709
35,416
97,034
65,465
431,163
317,152
288,201
569,017
57.955
73,128
233.338
773,454
78.489
160,297
0 6 M COST
36,820
39,607
39,757
34,628
43,141
37,058
43,902
34.628
34,442
34,873
34,628
32,470
34,628
35,650
44,186
34,628
32,470
3ft. 893
35,104
3<>,714
32,508
3:; .808
34,628
1 3B.316
37,154
32,901
32,470
34.628
315,378
33,188
34,628
32,901
34,628
! 32,901
38. 980
; 33,424
36,638
41,103
34,628
34,628
' 35,756
43,964
34,628
34,797
LAND COST
43,640
17,099
30,587
455
36,689
12,154
40,884
12,704
7.929
2,070
' 4,143
1.605
3,770
11,666
26,807
1,188
1,472
3,674
6,514
17,284
17,020
8,629
3,518
4,361
4,732
826
1,064
1,586
9,964
1,353
2,178
3,108
4,393
2,796
8,556
16,230
14,829
8.611
5,609
1,328
3,913
46,156
3p A *
,626
2,528
III-A4
002048
-------
JPLANT
1 NUMBER
......... 1-
1539 |
1560* |
1575 I
1595 |
1608* |
1622 |
1628 |
1645 |
1657
1659* |
1666* |
1667
1706
1716*
1740
1742
1743
1744*
1751
1764
1773
1788
1793*
1805
1826
1832**
1833
1853
1876*
1891
1894*
1899
1904**
1931
1936
1971
1974
1993
2004
2007*
2018
2037
2070
2084**
28,097 |
S:SI
JSi
«SI
ss
82,691
•ISi
i®i
•SI
..ssi
SSI
11
II 1
I ( 1982
Sffl
S:S
Hi
li
II!
32,627 |
SSI
III
ti
41 i
ill
II 1
1
-®
I
l.JJJ
•
s
5ofi 103
II
II
H
••!!
......... ..........
i
II
.
».« w
3.117 7J 7JJ 4?()
»:•»
'Si
Isi
ss
34 628
H
Bi
li:
II
1Q8
4,811 |
27,333 |
16,919 |
39,887 |
55,326 |
28,274 |
13,836 |
I
I
t
3,518 |
3,052 1
4,890 1
2.132 I
8,093 |
15.232 |
9.936 |
2,062
I
I
389,265 |
3.153 |
5,679 |
7,980 |
I
I
I
4,742 |
1,352 |
4,413 |
3.131 |
47,608 |
5,836 |
4,381 |
22,454 |
21,857 |
96,866 |
III-A5
002049
-------
1
1
1
^ER JCAI
1—
2093 |
2117 |
2129* |
2176 |
2184 |
2191 |
2232 |
2241 |
2243 |
2250 |
2259 |
2261 |
2288 |
2293 |
2300 |
2311 |
2318 |
2341 |
2348 |
2350 |
2359 |
2442 |
2459 |
2465* |
2469 |
2485 |
2487 |
2495 |
2498 |
2501 |
. 2517
2524 |
2539 |
. 2548*
2565
2634 I
2635
2641
2646
2666**
2677*
2714
2736
2741
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
AT PROMULGATION I
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS ) 1
( 1982 dollars ) 1
»ITAL COSTI 0
180,385 |
103,741 |
64,434 |
66,263 |
73,357 |
34,492 |
163,252 |
308,833 |
262,203 |
49,767 |
48,027 |
134,922 |
33,247 |
48,944 |
263,943 |
64,666 |
61,044 |
329,039 |
74,515 |
50,105 |
23.024 |
25.687 |
57.364 |
63,965 |
35.088 |
1,590,890 j
119,628 |
177,172 |
56.810 |
57,226 |
113.037 |
55.389 |
118.254 |
95.367 |
198,826 |
67,152 |
1,959,465 |
127,060 |
161.793 t
44.225 t
120,554 |
24,200 |
185.499 |
97,007 |
|..»-
37,810 |
33,648 |
31,957 |
32,008 |
32,245 |
31,778 |
36,876 |
44,422 |
42,107 |
31,778 |
31,778 |
35,321 |
31,778 |
31,778 |
42,195 |
31,963 |
31,876 |
45,397 |
32,289 |
31,778 |
31,778 |
31,778 |
31,813 |
31,945 |
31.778 |
130,523 |
34.500 |
37.635 |
31,806 |
31.811 |
34,136 |
31,791 |
. 34,415 |
33,224 |
38,804 |
32,035 |
155,721 |
34,892 |
36,796 |
31,778 |
34,539 |
31,778 |
38,087 |
33,305 |
ND COST JCAI
9.703 |
5,894 |
4.424 |
1.536 |
1,622 |
1,342 |
6.187 1
66.148 |
4,469 J
2,200 |
4,132 |
2,683 |
3.153 |
16.853 |
4,646 |
19,004 |
1,611 |
14,555 |
4,736 \
1,482 |
2,160 |
2.440 |
17.961 |
1,171 1
1,232 |
70,040 |
958 |
9,021 |
3,682 |
1,564 |
4,616 |
1,347 |
6,481 |
4,098 |
10,010 |
1,689 |
47.796 |
2,559 |
6.139 |
1,010 |
1,747 |
3,352 |
3,514 |
5.628 |
^^ mm 99
IN-PLANT BIOLOCIiJAL COST ESTIMATES
BASED ON REVISE]) DETENTION TIMES
PSES ( INDIRECT PLANTS )
( 1982 dollars )
* M COST | LAND COST
296,693 |
199.815 |
194.581
201.030
226.393 |
58,990 |
267.422 |
1.275,337 |
546,383 |
88,894 |
85,441
266,167
56,599
141,609 |
1.051,858 |
98.930 |
111.505
548.550
115.661
89,564
29,838
34.087
170,031 |
192,935 |
49.374
18.740,326
233,892
291.207 |
168,132
169,558
181,477
100,118
190,409
308.364
405
103
6.268
205
580
126
407
64
30
185,663 I
1
1
9
|
•
1
f
1
I
1
1
j
t
I
•
j
•
j
1
j
I
J
1
1
1
I
9
I
1
I
j
•
I
1
1
I
I
1
j
1
j
I
j
I
> j
I
t j
I
> I
' 1
> j
• 1
r I
•
i j
* 1
j i
9 I
7 j
• I
Bi
1
9 I
w I
a I
1
7|
1
61
1
7 I
• 1
8 1
w 1
o i
w 1
3 1
* 1
1 i
* ,
2 I
* i
3 1
•• i
.* i
39,003 |
35.191 |
35.191 |
35,279 |
35,650 |
J2, S 101 |
38,032 |
49.1197 |
M.K68 |
3)2,902 |
2)2,901 |
»7,025 |
32,901 |
34,663 |
47.412 |
32,761 |
33.110 |
46,813 |
33,145 |
32,903 |
32,470 |
32.470 1
34,893 |
35,170 |
32,470 |
770 „ 425 |
36,130 |
38,822 |
34,873 |
34,888 |
35,154 |
32,968 |
35,451 |
36,971 |
40.764 |
32,848 |
328,251 |
35,954 |
41.268 |
34,628 |
31.600 |
34,628 |
SSI, 290 |
34.808 I
14,859
9.313
9,211
3,276
3,773
1,357
9,004
497,675
11,924
2,513
4,659
4,862
3,156
27.647 |
30,875 |
19,191 |
1,994 |
31.497 |
4.987 |
1,697 |
1,890 |
2.135 1
33.834 1
2.424 |
1,119 |
294,834 |
1,630 |
13,687 |
6,878 |
2,941 |
5,669 |
1,603 |
8,114 |
11.895 |
22.593 |
1.724 |
56,354 |
3.307 |
27,546 |
1,515 |
6,162 |
3.085 |
5.460 |
8,601 |
III-A6
002050
-------
1
1
(PLANT |"
JNUMBER JCJ
2748 |
2756 |
2776 1
2793 |
2796 j
4001 |
4003 |
4006* |
4007 j
4008 1
4014 |
4022 j
4024 |
4026* |
4027 |
4032 |
4044 j
4047 |
» W - |
4050 |
4057 |
4070 j
4072* |
1
TOTALS J
( 1982 dollars )
tflTAL COSTI 0 & M COST
190,890
1,533,142
49,801
113,149
196,476
66,776
134,197
56,530
130,498
97,277
23,626
42,119
26,279
92,263
111,118
28,933
165,485
60,026
38,859
48,699
41,899
41,229
49,802,940
38,378
126,548
31,778
34,142
38,678
32,023
35,282
31.803
35,079
33,319
31,778
31,778
31,778
33,072
34,034
31,778
36,998
31,856
31,778
31.778
31,778
31,778
9,983.728
BIOLOGICAL COST ESTIMATES
LAND COST (CAPITAL COST|
2,281
68,768
3,955
2.345
3,501
3.977
7,563
6.814
3,888
24,181
1.216
3,747
1.216
5,444
6,190
3.739
2,259
1,136
868
3,923
1,281
1,275
708,716
4,935.083
144.460
377,819
324.147
123.134
463,307
167.175
448,045
315,693
30.793
61.007
70.364
296,523
369,750
39,321
271,239
179.203
55,597
140,798
73,370
116,428
0 & M COST |
••••••— I"
43,092 |
266,090 |
34,678 |
38.117 1
39.903 |
33,309 |
39,490 |
34.863 I
39,249 |
37,093 |
32,470 I
32,470 |
34,628 |
36,776 |
37,985 |
32,470 |
38,159 |
34,997 |
32,470 |
34,660 I
32.901 |
34.628 |
I
LAND COST
•••••••••»•
11,698
71,652
6,587
7,848
5,609
5,113
29,130
12,674
14,635
71,364
1,064
3,464
1,133
15,371
20,406
3,383
3,310
2,226
795
6,407
1,377
1,798
«+U/A" I -r*,«.«.» •- - |
TOTALS j «.«o2,Mo ..••».»•. j:»?:t!!.!?!!:?!h?? ..*!:??!:!!!.!..!:"?:-*.
* -
TO 413 HOURS.
TO 413 HOURS.
III-A7
Oil 2 051
-------
APPENDIX III-B
REVISED BAT AND PSES COST COMPLIANCE ESTIMATES
AND TECHNOLOGY BASIS
( COST DATA PRESENTED IN 1982 DOLLARS )
0-02052.
-------
-------
•AT COST DATA
fUMT TOTAL
COS «MER CAPITAL COSTS
1
2
3
4
S
*
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
It
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
12
15
33
61
43
76
83
•7
101
102
105
112
11*
154
155
159
177
180
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412 8
415
443
444
446 8
447
451
481
485
583212
•81544
0
912274
0
1529448
328468
541052
0
0
1200770
0
1118466
328468
1406902
0
1011495
0
•62959
731177
•21587
610771
454726
354104
366729
0
1231815
1411929
60026
384432
0
594489
•973044
405958
6856767
2969660
450142
461491
2000000
$72195
3551871
•68975
110889
•70823
2745254
0
498116
1866959
TOTAL
Oft* COSTS
o
77154
128618
115757
4750
1562142
31298
196316
0
2123576
368477
33389
668691
0
103592
451849
1072783
757824
115960
28989
50601
S4659
0
147463
651263
31856
67491
0
119654
3754917
63704
3047519
•41368
33874
47794
335000
•1880
3621418
154617
34022
•1870
1026242
• A
0
37693
2954508
TOTAL CAPITAL 0 8 N : COBTUCT
UNO COSTS 8UBGE COSTS 8UMC COSTS MU.IM COSTS H
0
•994
4324
4653
46817
310
1937
340814
$1427
2412
22693
0
21556
0'
17831
46000
16733
5036
2124
•063
3248
0
38554
13206
626
9018
0
21801
94349
1466
248419
37964
2736
•211
9100
62487
129088
28737
6542
5165
41564
t
2374
114488
0
0
3536
o
37220
193544
11724
0
o
276731
472694
74440
738817
48586
o
0
0
173544
375178
0
385227
470833
•1*84
776832
0
111460
461521
329397
3908
358431
U27258
0
0
0
0
460906
7816
0
28101
545805
0
0
0
0
762
0
•016
0
41683
2325
0
0
0 !
59599
0
101803
14032
159118
0;
*
10421
0
•
0'
1
41483
•0801
0:
;
•2966
101402
.
17635
193075
24048 ;
0'
144416
114988
•42
127299
•88306
0<
0
0
234725
1483
0
4052
135655
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
0
22265
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0-
•
0
0
_
0
0
44530
,
ANNUAL
MITOtlNG COSTS
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
fcFrf^F
41206
^ f 4i4Mp
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
33782
29539
S1259
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
29539
51259
65286
26827
26827
36574
26827
51259
29539
29539
26827
fcWOfcf
41206
26827
29539
41206
111-81
002053
-------
•AT eorr MTA
HAMT TOTAL
•* «MEK CAPITAL COSTS
SO
51
52
S3
54
55
M
57
S8
S9
40
41
42
43
44
45
44
47
48
49
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
•1
82
83
84
85
86
87
8fi
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
486
488
500
S02
318
523
325
5368
S49
S80
402
408
411
414
433
45788
459
442
443
444
469
482
483
495
709
727
741
758
775
•02
•11
•14
•19
•25
•44
851
859
•66
871
•76
•77
•83
•88
908
909
913
938
942
948
•72185
1154248
328709
0
1950998
72315
0
944485
0
114439
0
455540
947308
328468
•09133
11957032
454557
1247446
•58500
919793
0
497987
1403937
2383893
0
471403
0
0
5^0068
551554
0
4225611
•484607
837227
0
S577409
0
0
451103
352177
1497397
0
0
448303
2743896
1141795
115653
0
1291236
TOTAL
C4M COSTS
102024
448093
38823
2281436
42486
0
239229
0
34318
0
1052470
144442
34148
73458
485730
52002
428399
492391
S30S84
0
144981
781729
244490
0
•4419
0
0
448746
104422
0
1332591
3028592
151315
e
3155331
0
fl
42992
305539
§33303
0
0
78050
1079582
797059
•4916
0
448579
TOTAL CAPITAL
UMD COSTS 8UME COSTS I
27793
109650
S380
14440
7095
0
14051
0
2395
14970
10314
1578
12751
192448
2826
12473
18605
10537
15825
40680
9«475
S792
0
0
3151
4480
0
41218
109041
4430
0
138805
0
0
4002
6730
27721
0
0
0660
101930
47694
1951
0
13690
10408
•2254
143396
e
329397
135!
2419
•7095
2480
374795
7*4871
115382
714485
429494
•46854
45140
•84190
404877
248143
344144
4587
540371
372200
444270
0
0
•50672
OtN COmACT MMUAL
RJUDOI COSTS •atniw cons NCNITORIHS COST
2285
17715
35190
0 12448
70942
291
S7889
S21
18757
S77
133111
144729
•4850
15430(1 (
0 1244*
132409
215450
0 15140.
141902
g
g
g
•44412
g
150337
•5240
74549
W18
139274
•0140
144889
211427
29539
29539
29539
29539
24827
29539
29539
26627
29539
29539
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
24827
) 24827
29539
51259
51259
5125?
29539
51259
41206
29539
29539
29539
33782
41206
41206
29539
SS782
41206
4120ft
33782
33782
29539
24827
29539
26827
51259
41206
41206
29539
29539
51259
111-82
00203
-------
TOTAL TOTAL
MS SU«* CAPITAL COSTS «6J» COSTS
•AT COST DAT*
' • -" - !
TOTAL WITAL 08* COMPACT
COSTS tuaa COSTS suuoa eorri MULIM COSTS
•9
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
106
109
110
111
112
115
1U
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
125
124
125
126
127
128
129
ISO
151
152
133
154
155
156
157
138
139
UO
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
•56
•62
•70
•73
•64
•90
•91
•92
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1117"
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241 •
1249
1267
1299
1319
1523
1327
1340
1543
1548
1549
1589
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520 —
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
0
712986
469119
•28624
328468
528468
0
454719
454779
S49621
0
•72717
0
458705
0
438206
139529
2219293
479601
135903
•33465
0
332097
635556
1051487
0
0
0
S44754
2953691
1199794
1740987
0
0
411405
1002773
4106377
454719
573116
1470942
350650
482849
646M?8
1D04495
81 (772
528468
425575
1036063
0
0
47022
15791
275200
J2299
33924
0
22668
T9639
49140
0
207113
14500
113196
0
45409
S5574
246146
40911
185891
4796387
0
41724
•9018
124479
0
0
0
49758
1166459
446637
2625061
1000
0
67752
• 560864
2354667
14197
$4619
1876635
716244
•9671
2288557
252/121
4140048
36119
75044
174401
25000
0
2665
6765
45089
1495
1112
0
2736
4443
•310
0
14421
0
•264
_
4155
1079
24383
12220
4411
23760
0 '
2210
24064
23939
0.
1679
117597
24908
S6497
0
1220
•225
147923
•460
3606
48060
42460
6402
•4297
45473
22573
2583
11239
6011
0
0
95830
442303
404825
95630
115362
0
0
S65659
S55451
0
524713
466885
o
S7220
276325
404423
214015
921060
24565
617015
409104
941551
.
0
772315
772315
267695
0
913436
195405
0
0
340219
30334
0
116546
, 217737
186100
0 71248
12024
159639
130260
12024
24850
0 445
o !•
US561
74555 !
o «w«
164355
105290
0
•016
•
M649
0!
,
214445
0 !
0 *45
44092
112224
9291
0
0
o
o
V
153354
•6106
11403
o
0
144332
144332
102177 i
110621
42084
Oi
:
01
,
120831
4553
0
25531
44894
40080
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
51259
33782
41206
41206
53782
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
41206
33782
53782
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
53782
29539
24827
29539
41206
29539
57597
26827
29539
29539
51259
II!-S3
-------
•AT eorr DATA
HJUtT TOTAL TOTAL «"•«• «!$ 8UMI COSTS UVULIW COSTS WIITC81II6 BSl
MS KMEK CAPITAL COSTS C8M COSTS U» COSTS «UB* |
U8 1593
149 1*09
150 1*1*
151 1*17
132 1*«
153 1*24
154 1*43
155 W7
15* 1*50 8
157 145*
158 1470
159 1484
140 1488
141 1*95
1*2 1*98
1*3 1714
1*4 1717
1*5 1724
14* 1753
1*7 17*6
1*8 17*9
1*9 1774
170 1785
171 1802
172 1839
173 1869
174 1877
175 1881
17* 1890
177 1905
178 1910
179 1911
180 1928*
181 1937
182 1943
183 1973
18* 1977
185 1986
18* 2009
187 2020
188 2026
189 203086
190 2047
191 2049
192 2055
193 2062
194 2073
195 2090
196 2110
0
905355
331423
576429
485778
778349
0
912609
20575507
' 0
0
73357
343107
4893992
449881
778349
328468
•41150
471437
378121
7875173
1035891
1012253
444655
782792
418340
1389291
328468
529854
386297
1135742
486981
•26194
1251214
0
599338
0
0
474383
0
454719
1437358
328468
378242
0
785050
1565332
43318
362960
0
288820
41307
1291980
104759
41593
0
479951
4527482
0
0
32245
44699
1257500
13302
5*004
31437
105982
139572
58123
•718672
243484
44868 /s
705348 /*
•81*55
31*17
113492
43117
1235931
104868
75304
4281*8
0
119580
0
0
•0746
0
17720
1390413
34770
59210
0
50058
2107497
35647
43158
0
1V941
3IS24
4296
1S43*
2855
10155
1058825
494
7103
24851
13086
•912
•26
31038
19144
4074
1S71SS
13226
29524
J 13785
* • AMUL
••DO
}4* 3*28
27052
431
19406
5875
D1405
27170
5583
41880
5777
0
0
9318
0
2736
•4990
3724
4012
5652
46931
1953
4065
502470
206571
0
1359
o
232625
1732309
0
307065
27*873
B484
S4848
S350
397130
547134
0
•71002
758625
546210
9863
1(3867
41873
290314
15204
108740
44*238
7072
121523
311449
•4772
57491
14330
•78392 .
34801
0 0 29539
106216 0 29539
44489 0 26627
0 0 29539
0 0 26827
293 « »»
0 0 26827
50100 0 29539
445153 0 57597'
0 0 29539
0 4453 t953fl
0 133590 33782 |
44132
98353
o
7254
7936
721
141079
117835
0
309342
192393
135756
2124
o
39599
•018
42525
3275
44493
US486
1523
24172
Q
110613
20842
12425
0
26627
91259
26627
26627
26627
29539
412H6
26627
41206
29539
51259
29539
26837
51259
29539
33782
33782
33782
41206
33782
2*127
295.39
33112
29S39
51259
26027
29839
29839
33782
412M
26027
2W3«
0 26121
3086 0 ™
W17B ° £S
o o 2f5S*
7495 0 «*
111-84
(JG2056
-------
•AT COST 0ATA
0BS
197
198
199
200
201
S02
SOS
204
SOS
306
S07
SOB
209
210
S11
212
S13
S14
SIS
316
S17
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
S29
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
ptAItT TOTAL
E« CAPITAL COSTS
457716
0
0
355187
474950
•61504
470350
1717297
783187
450946
794313
2148
2181
2193
1198
32060
S221
S222
2227
2228
S236
S242
S254
2268
S272
S281
S292
2296
2307
S313
S315
2316
S322
2328
234S
2353
2360
S364
2365
2368
S376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
U30431
1521382
414832
423153
0
0
0
424577
•64597
2093797
0
341793
0
426189
32*468
$37219
$43298
444098
0
1228402
0
0
328468
$77551
4501134
415461
0
1140796
356565
0
740217
1068738
•70231
1614132
521479
366452
0
TOTAL
•H COCTS
216786
0
0
$0962
135546
222780
139270
1113595
42842
44378
44472
115855
2902047
2272954
118314
141108
0
0
0
90041
117054
2326055
0
46190
0
71906
31298
47124
104153
$2884
0
102965
0
0
32929
117539
4461361
48897
1000
1420471
43076
0
424664
320795
417182
1128181
190457
54573
0
TOTAL
m
20974
0
0
3103
$916
7719
4406
$7123
$329
•085
9040
12674
417*4
$3161
3459
35402
0
0
0
«312
7232 .
109087
0
7518
0
3452
424
3521
$081
2*30
0
13864
0
0
1*74
62203
215084
3285
0
31753
2973
0
S8735
17744
$6775
$7991
3733
9703
0
APITAL
DOE COSTS
•14281
0
0
392671
0
320092
395910
1047842
$420
10515
1*0267
422275
45135
•14743
9119
0
0
0
0
411281
1489
$46114
0
297202
0
•74470
14543
0
948787
0
0
$24449
0
0
44810
0
344970
•00230
0
491866
15446
0
0
930580
329925
343445
0
468972
0
0 I H iGOVTIACT
•ucxz com «miK tons
3028*0 !
0
0 S9060
•4549
0
40938
140610
372148
1210
2265
40360
154*61
14028
302503
1944
0
0
0
0
•8377
321
121923
o
44008
0
188376
3567
0
S35813
Q
0
1*6261
0
0
14389
0
122518
172344
0
171958
3327
0
0
231288
117175
129080
0
101002
0
UTOtlW COSTS
29539
24827
33782
S95S9
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
S9539
29539
S9539
S1259
. S9539
29539
26827
24827
29539
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
2*827
337*2
29539
41206
33782
29539
.41206
S9539
26827
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
33782
41206
2*827
31259
51259
51259
26827
26827
29539
111*15
-------
•AT COT 24TA
KAMT TOTAL
ttt flUMftlt CMITAL CDITS
24*
247
241
249
250
251
252
253
254
2S5
25*
257
25*
259
240
241
242
243
244
245
24*
247
24*
249
270
271
272
273
274
27$
27*
277
271
279
an
ati
M2
•KM*
US
X44
US
24*
217
2337
2541
2551
255*
2S73
2590
2592
240*
242*
2431
2433
2448
1*73
247»
a**o
am
am
am
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2711
2716
2795
2*U
2111
1033
4002
4010
4017
4011
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
23*4*8
171*347
0
0
1207405
•5*17*
422449
0
0
472524
0
§12454
139927
1011*11
0
0
1257905
413499
431155
15495711
117139
4*427*
•0*987
771726
458155
917047
•91020
10*0229
1234199
42529
1C9tSO
0
•
•
99291*
1137313
$53*99
132273
13273
TOTAL
•MGorrs i
221*9
2295209
0
•
17405*
74221
70159
•
•
24*7174
199175
•4752
45444
493372
1000
1*05243
449010
4071*
1X43917
•7571
•24$*
94119
44122
47022
40716
157442
73529
•45104
241*70
11909
2*322
0
0
0
231249
101519
74549*
12254
41K*
40*81
TOTAL
MB COST* •
11514
23701
1251*
1394
17170
24412
12944
23*5
24 VU
0
an*3
14241
49*0
272135
•235
S450
11345
4J20
4SS5
•157
13873
92*9
4742
1*931
42*0
IB*
0
"
0
41090
117924
1H271
14125
T371
5106*7
UDOI earn i
•3411
445250
-
407559
11*1
•4*61*
-
20975*
19X549
4094
4^ft44>9%
•2*72
1114*
•
990259
fTMSO
4230*4
19*051
21774
25230
911*
15731
S755M
19217*
27171
15*929
12579
21517*
-^__^^^— — •— •
e*n oowrtAcr «MUAL
mPff am WULIK oatr* mmiM wrrs
11503
100200
g
17775
401
1*2745
• 4*53
g
42405
141547
t
2405
1
•46121
g
202947
154*42
H74S2
4*09
12024
19*4
7493
143047
2*1595
2*127
29539
24827
26*27
29539
29539
•6127
29539
29539
41206
41206
"^ 29539
24S27
29539
2*827
29539
41206
41206
24127
29539
•1259
29539
41206
29539
29539
237*2
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
' 29539
9 29539
. 2*539
. 2412?'
H52 tf55*
15431 il53fl
* 2**2T
****• • 295S*
' _ . i ••••
27*011*15
13077161*
7113445
•7*47*45
15354179
13*444$
• . KMTS !«E IKOMCTLT WCLUOO » tK LNT Of •*T4T"2
'^
in th. oriEin.1 table.
III-**
002058
-------
MES COST iATA
PLANT TOTAL
*S 8U8UK CAPITAL COSTS
1 2 328*68
2 S 45*351
s 10 BM20
4 22 1350986
4
7
•
10
11
12
14
IS
16
17
18
to
21
22
23
2*
21
26
27
28
29
30
SI
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4*
45
46
47
48
49
S3
49
32
71
72»
79*«
•8
93
•4
110*
111
119
120
122
143
149-
158
161*
162
163
166
196«
199
203
206
209
212
21*
220
221
232
2*0
2**
249
257
•62*
266
276
283
285
292
293*
S27873
4310032
74298*
130*4*3
•591*0
0
0
17*759
409506
0
159927
90362*
•41778
0
351358
•53663
485600
•7458*
10*0705
0
208*075
0
•57582
•7912
18720*2
383200
498503
485303
0
S6599
133100*
S72588
1357031
489168
31269*28
0
•2*202
17*116*
•22672
•23*0*
6555*0
618270*
0
1000599
1758967
TOTAL
01* COSTS I
31298
32339
74081
740063
211506
1110003
1S6290
970503
76913
0'
9
120*26
4939*
9
34452
1589*2
142910
45497
77070
S8337
100313
230985
0
2296395
0
218398
254896
177443*
1328857
42932
31889
0
. 39901
307377
46503
151339
103636
2487826
0
•8035
1576686
130868
74097
1052*70
743893
0
13311*
2296850
TOTAL
MB COSTS •
451
71*8
11933
1499*
1608
74627
97*12
74771
9185
•
22113
44822
1793
U6275
21778
29278
4347
•3762
466*
38366
116658
S4291
14951
99727
W239
48063
80386
0
950
14147
17081
11526
7899
362459
7293
130061
D19272
4493
1524*
•0500
22335
41391
CAPITAL
UUDOE COSTS
3722
0
3461
S2666
T3957S
116126
422*
7444
1722
o
9305
1722
14330
•98691
e ft N comAC
tUUDOE COSTS ffMIUW CO
•02
9
11343
A
•
V
10060
'
25010
I
22265
•906
1403
•02
0 4453
Q
too* i
9
•02
1086
a tra
f MMUAL
(TS SDHTOtlK CRTS
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
•6827
33782
29539
33782
•6827
29539
26827
0 29539
0 36827
• 24827
0 19539
0 ' S9539
0 ' -29539 •
0 , 29539
» 36827
j^ 0 *9539
D 133590 t9519
11166
227414
•
2405
• A
0 29539
a 29539
48978 0 29539
fi 26827
1 ^
1
0 26827
0 26827
A 29539
1162*0 33782
182378
133062
213085
30148
74440
2419
•419
V
0
A
w
44018
0
. 39278
0 [
•8457
i
45892
0
4493
14032
121
121
0'
I
Ol
9 t9539
0 33782
0 33782
0 29539
0 41206
0 . 29539
0 24827
0 29539
0 29539
o *«z*
« 41206
A 29539
\ . w
0 «06 «*«T
13788
0 29539
0 19539'
V
111*87
002059
-------
nes corr MTA
91AMT TOTAL
OBS m*K* CAMTAl COSTS C
SO
SI
S2
S3
S*
53
S4
S7
fl
59
40
**
42
4*
44
47
49
71
72
15
fir
74
Wf
ft
71
• W
Tf
•1
82
83
*^
ME
K> '
17
89
•A
TV
91
92
93
9*
95
94
97
96
fit
4^^*
102
110
S3*
1*8
35*
417
423
428
430**
433-
438
4*9
451
458
448
492
49*
SOS
S22
fP**"
S29
*•»»
5**
S92
405
418
458
441
4^ft7
w*
702
706
717
720
722
72*
7*3
7*9
768*
771
777
791
796
161900 %
1*0166
.413750
722381
497359
107392*
859503
0
1224*15
8
901018
42169*85
1220U9
45*02*
0
8
17105712
•81651
101*6*
S42S07
0
1395176
45*32*
450538
0
8*76*6
728736
0
1132003
0
9126969
1127885
•8993*
11*256
S73612
422301
440286
1410575
5*1598
892807
91U67
906879
486809
567803
0
TOTAL
MM COSTS U
45972
455*2
708*8
44072
161071
7*49*
8
•17501
f
8
434183
8
1030712
447760
•8519
8
8
849528
105285
1*628
186*02
8
1156287
11526
SS800
0
102057
4471*
8
1*0329
8
1406548
102926
114239
8
S4431
47*81
43021
45359
4789469
45090
142068
•2156
12235*
$90259
642*1
0
MD COSTS a
4312
18*3
sots
1309!!
48039
15*44
4472
8
48*97
w
8
H88
•
789442
11187
4423
8
1918*55
4889
3374
46108
3736
4466
7156
14158
8
13877
8
1S270*
S5349
4441
8
1036
11810
112*1
1062
157*2
18571
7421
5281
•6809
40983
0
9656
0
MBtYAL
BHrl IWfc
uDOECom a
74301
18*733
8
8
8
t935*
1475
8
8*303
8
•5130
74(510
44525
1437
120965
186
•1032
•63145
1717
•
*
8
47249*
7114
16*26
1489
61599
0
8
04«
UDOICOm W
14433
41322
8
4148
141
8
18154
.
1102*
18020
8
8
8
3527
" 8
8
8
•4052
8
o
0
401
o
8
4252
e
14473
18162
185
o
.
8
8
o
181803
1
140
S491
121
0246
8
8
8
* . »«V f\ f\ t*
COVTtACT
I&IK com
23265
8
8
•9060
o
8
122450
8
8
8
44530
8
8
182*19
8
•9060
0
8
8
12265
8
8
144741
8
222650
8
8
8
0359
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
0
44530
* *
0
133590
ft
AMML
"n"""mi
14827
19539
19539
14827
13712
19539
13782
•6827
24827
19539
24827
19S39
16827
41206
19539
14827
24827
16827
S1259
33782
19539
SS782
19539
19539
14827
16827
14827
16827
S782
16827
19539
19539
41206
33781
19539
19539
19539
16827
16827
19539
41216
16827
195X9
24827
19539
29539
29539
24827
24827
Uii20'0
111-88
UC206t£ .
-------
IT tATA
PUNT TOTAL
OBS 8U«H CAPITAL COSTS
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
114
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
124
127
128
129
130
131
132
113
134
135
136
137
138
139
UO
141
U2
143
144
145
146
147
797»
•45
•46
•62
•74
•80
•87
905
912
917
929
931
932
944**
•58
975
976
987
988
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
1047^
1052
1053
1057
1064
1069
1076
1083
1085
1086
1091*
1094-*
1107
1117
1126*
1142
1143
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
955346
18371051
42290
408855
0
1309815
•46397
0
1188068
533746
0
128468
487756
0
0
70364
125548
450933
744737
44292
0
371472
•87194
405203
333002
1035194
0
1148662
950444
902643
17316
0
422714
0
•38784
48380
•94350
1406481
742934
457746
S19262
1785276
475122
1140424
1251348
40899
0
438757
792564
TOTAL
88* COSTS U
132670
1389253
14428
224882
1044843
335120
0
288290
•3893
0
11351
42765
0
0
14428
13410
•4643
137478
14428
0
54046
77032
110856
42241
148806
141110
•9666
•4663
12901
0
70934
0
74097
12901
109625
1179293
1077848
19842
47479
2367798
126133
114112
210464
14628
0
471268
•4182
TOTAL CAPITAL
U8) COSTS CUBflE COTS
11520
117475
S816
8529
40142
21295
9275
10340
2095
47400
33S2
8701
4594
10077
•4KC^
1034
4474
13382
1443
6053
•063
§3794
4147
1199
735
4781
•802
1410
•0194
3*057
49366
2147
1425
82889
•948
19813
48045
12704
18306
7428
4839
£04877
0
20457
0
111497
478277
198755
S3498
4453
1722
22S320
0
0.
45408
45*8
•50477
1336
0
0
• 143138
0
0
0
0
9863
0
0
44711
24054
08N
BUBS COSTS 1
1042
130337
•
4449
0
24056
103006
42805
721
1002
•02
48096
M078
•Wf W i
0
0'
•
9780
1419
0
183146
0
7*2
0
«'!
•
11242
0"
8"
'
0'
,
0'
2124
0
• 0
10060
3611
Wtf.tK COSTS «
0
142496
0
133590
0
0
24718
0
o
129137
0
o
218197
4453
200385
0
o
o
400770
178120
22265
•9060
44795
0
42342
0
247180
•906
223986
178120
0
0
MMUM.
BITQ81IC COSTS
29539
41206
13782
29539
24827
26827
24827
29539
29539
26827
24827
29539
24827
24827
. 29539
13782
29539
13782
24827
24827
24827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
24827
33782
13782
29539
29539
24827
24827
13782
26827
29539
29539
26827
24827
29539
24827
29539
26827
33782
24827
29539
29539
111-89
002081
-------
COST DATA
plAMT TOTAL
Bis *M£R CAPITAL COSTS 4
148 1191*
149 119***
150 «95
151 11*7
152 W2
153 «19
154 1220"
155 1223
15* 122*
157 1234"
158 1P4
159 1137
140 12*9
141 12S3
142 1255
143 12***
U* «77
us 010
1*4 1313
U7 131*
148 1320
1*9 1322
170 132*
471 1351
If I ••* •
172 «52
173 1356*
174 1357
175 13*1*
17* 1371
177 1386
178 U26
179 1*32
180 ttSS
111 usr
112 1*50
US Wi-
tt* 150*
185 1507"
18* 1528
187 1534
188 1535
189 1539
190 15*8
191 1556
in 15«*
193 15*2
194 15*4
195 15*6
196 1575
1052*33
145*70
49374
480717
1372926
1531*1
182384
727383
4*2231
1149538
13*188
1029111
45*324
45*719
•22672
1058751
1357381
1541*
29242
147807
•90835
172056
•99063
15416
•52757
520184
1527456
0
0
709683
1071388
0
109*862
17955
•19033
101*525
1287795
533208
81501*
1185162
0
*5U79
•22672
795401
0
0
28208
TOTAL
OS* COSTS U
231186
44928
12*70
71*291
19792
48076*0
4*415
437*8
18S8099
12824
10*808
47595
1123*8
15794
27*84
1308*8
•9923
11052723
12901
12*70
45285
•71*2
43908
1892*5
12901
150*78
44196
1014348
0
113722
•52*3
0
159394
14428
128803
•41*0
212558
4*935
48592
221174
14298
1108*8
•5553
0
0
12470
tOTAl CAPITAL
m COOTS OUJOOI COSTS «*J
103*1
12135
1405
10120
2012*
•6775
1312
1785
15271
12400
2*833
11292
201*3
•4*0
2124
27814
7li95
2174*
«2*
10**
4574
t9M*
3477
12922
3108
30*5*
1*82
241180
2*7*6
2S879
10922
1*09
10326
7320
14190
11*18
12*4
35193
0
2736
2*555
3*38
0
0
1106
1451*
0
1908
0
409
17133
0
2*545
0
0
2*19
2*193
tmso
^^^^^•w
0
0
0
Til*
1908
0
122*5*
-
174190
«S79
2233
2977*
253*4
1419
13*970
0
0
08 M CTBT8ACT
UD01 COSTS flMA-tW COSTS «
112* °
e 11210
0
•42
0
1042
0
12305
1291
0
121
1210
SO**
• 11177
t 4898
•010
0
wo
• 115
842
0
2*373
0 222*
50
0 4*530
.....
14188 °
0 U250
0 •
e 1W*
481 °
•413 °
0 °
o o
o o
e wo*
.—
• 75701
0 °
121 °
29499 °
0 T5701
0 44530
0 2*2727
(if
MMU&i.
rnoxiw com
29539
13782
• 2*827
2*827
2*827
2*827
13782
29539
2*827
13782
13782
29539
13782
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
13782
2*827
2*827
2*827
. 3378:!
29539
13782
29539
33782
29539
2*827
2*827
29539
•2*827
29539
29519
2*827
295319
2*8S!7
SS7II2
2*827
2*827
2*827
flM^mn
SVKr?
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
2*£27
111-110
-------
ffft »8T 8ATA
fjftft TOTAL
Ots 8U«Et CAPITAL COSTS
«M eoiTi
WTAI
earn KJUDS CKTS
08N
•UB6E earrs
(orrtAcr
MU.IK BOKTS
197
198
200
201
202
203
204
205
106
207
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
119
220
221
222
223
224
225
224
227
228
229
80
81
82
83
84
85
84
87
88
89
240
241
242
243
144
245
1595
1401
1421
1422
1428
1453
1457
1459*
1444*
1704
1714*
1718
1740
1742
1743
1744*
1748
1751
1744
1773
1788
1793*
1797
1801
1805
1808
1812
1826
1833
1838
1843
1848
1853
1861
1876*
1887
1888
1891
1894*
1899
1904**
1924
1931
1936
1945
401768
47464
1145306
784293
1064996
•19422
•47272
457531
7257440
1315283
1104071
1423082
4097240
181704
0
441504
•8109
•87464
•22472
2257411
345591
1043741
S80822
434449
•15111
0
782792
717057
0
0
1077419
180427
1220165
0
0
43397
24285452
375481
1101414
0
0
•92291
1051486
1185438
44007030
459292
•38349
S7828A
454324
•5959
25803
358154
49241
•2944
145423
102994
1074092
7*8434
•22379
304422
154207
1137104
485354
132585
•5203
100758
130848
7840591
43768
•5435
47034
4889
124274
0"
42739
18492
444297
45454
132984
0.
14019
813798
S7177
301U9
0
291299
142944
18022
3488304
43282
77574
485403
17894
4M7
1420
14117
11491
17TOS
131774
13171
15332
34795
40430
187427
72234
33344
84019
•
23290
70248
11901
17814
•8815
8387
«93
§120
14553
124704
e
3270
1748
0
o
14555
10085
14193
o
0
289
438329
3424
•488
41418
30414
734492
2798
48908
34455
8440
0
0
31451
•3050
33312
S583
4700
0
§44210
47740
24193
304274
48944
0
722048
4S32
t41»
440455
1303
38473
•
0
1*154
0
S397
0
•
0
37220
0
100494
•
0
748004
23435
0
0
0
14005
69328
273759
0
•188
14379
0
0
0
4774
20040
T174
1202
1443
0
135754
14589
S210
48531
o
10541
0
155510
9419
W07
521
142284
281
4132 i
0
0
4148
0
1142
0
0
0
•014
0
11443
9
o
0 ,
185910
•497 ;
1090
0
' ° i
0
3447
19238
0
0
133590
oorrs
19539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
41206
41206
19539
29539
26827
41206
29539
29539
24827
29539
14827
29539
29539
14827
33782
24827
29539
29539
29539
29539
14827
155855
•9040
0
0
129137
44530
394317
0
0
178120
71248
33782
19539
33782
29539
29539
24827
29539
41206
29539
29539
24827
29539
41206
19539
19539
DO
111-811
-------
COST MTA
'KAirr TOTAL
Ott 8USUR CAPITAL COSTS
•4*
247
249
250
81
82
83
254
85
84
87
88
89
240
2*1
242
243
244
245
24*
247
249
270
271
272
273
274
275
27*
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
28*
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007*
2022
2033
2037
2050
2057
2070
2075
2080
2084**
2093
2108
2117
2123
2129*
2147
217*
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
2250
283
2259
22*1
22*2
2288
2293
2300
2311
818
2341
234*
2348
850
859
2402
2411
435222
454324
•00065
•4938
0
433527
454324
702369
•89217
1209073
0
0
•92112
0
454324
2081896
793256
128468
854280
1214161
0
•83374
140647
1101414
0
•83822
742090
72*024
58990
0
1155073
2182954
2400156
•72081
0
•17285
113*228
0
S109Z3
595933
1957070
•82117
•94492
138196?
577963
54442C
•24912
484162
0
402421
TOTAL
Oft* COSTS 1
99754
12406
•5649
12722
0
S2282
15971
81581
180405
JIJ808H
0
0
75143
o
29482
9999147
•5650
12940
88111
844905
.0
107006
45736
101149
0
•5482
235185*
•2729
12901
0
997803
S31323
4710827
74529
0
174555
1121404
0
43477
4*305
S19881
77143
75354
137211
11348*
128371
186944
42765
0
85201
TOTAL
AMD COSTS 8
4957
2124
1751
4413
8119
1*00
•1880
25860
18921
S9499
7056
104847
10493
1087
111138
14381
0
20500
18S6
43479
8573
19326
7157
21714
59*447
42144
7227
14IS4
2M8S
'
18212
411H9
98941
88940
180
44828
7740
11732
12547
4750
11547
CAPITAL
UMC COSTS •
•491
0
•188
297740
4094
e
444440
24922
4*996
232*25
•5135
288455
23435
21588
24054
8*0655
S24802
2419
•SOS
120593
*
0
449489
11827
4280
277289
286771
29032
10422
0
710902
08M COmACT 8MUAL
UME COCTS tttULIK COSTS SttlTatlK CISIt
_
t
2044
e
0
1744
44128
e
•82
•8192
7952
14429
10100
14028
42124
son
0
4449
0
5*11
142284
11102*
121
0
2004
25972
199879
2976
m&»
HZ
•9719
101849
882
2244
0
153106
• 24827
0 24827
• 29539
0 29539
178120 24827
11138 24827
0 24827
0 29539
0 2*827
• *627
11171 «7
•4407 ~2
0
S22450
178121
11804
ft9U
sc -a
29539 .
29539
29539
13782
29539
24827
.29539
24827
29539
24827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
2*827
29539
2W39
8782
0 24827
Q 24827
0 29539
44530 29539
111125 S*5"
2*827
26827
26827
13782
13782
41206
29539
24827
24927
15*24 29539
0 29539
111*812
002064
-------
res corr S*TA
KATT TOTAL
CIS *W*W CAPITAL COSTS
295 Mil
296 1426
297 1432
298 1436
299 2442
100 2459
101 2462
102 2465*
MS 1469
104 1485
105 1487
106 1495
187 1698
108 801
109 807
110 817
111 821
112 824
113 839
114 848*
11$ 845
114 871
517 T&n
118 881
119 2408
120 2409
321 2434
322 1635
323 2436
124 2441
»2442
*1^^»
126 2446
327 2447
128 1666**
129 2477»
330 2479
01 2485
332 2499
30 2714
04 2736
05 270
06 2748
07 2756
08 2776
09 2779
340 2793
341 2794
342 2796
343 2805
402421
0
121867
703983
•34882
953218
789713
1098767
•32561
19728758
1247707
1099477
951319
952350
0
0
183305
1190941
1294562
1777269
0
0
0
0
328468
187711
4405815
712792
444770
0
1394702
0
180427
1481098
328468
$05281
19243
•47479
781792
968633
1194885
9842187
1022687
485880
•43693
4171026
324147
0
TOTAL
am COSTS u
45201
141512
148658
98240
•2142
101712
297786
74063
1579796
•78249
223216
78222
•0454
0
93303
0
74849
•0188
S87442
850851
0
0
12496
242227
78S653
44426
93436
0
149246
0
44923
924751
16211
143156
73800
74221
171741
101440
140087
1882475
212187
94366
122221
838656
39903
0
VOTA1. CAPITAL 0 8 H (BBntACT MUUAL
MKVeOSTS CUJME COSTS •tUDOEWT* IMUtK COSTS 9J»!TQK1W COSTS
11567
24581
24272
18076
73814
4J55
11498
4027
S17723
•252
24193
14867
6425
US81
4402
S2053
4080
•6293
• '
0
o
9*»
10460
$9184
900
4419
$4517
1439
19412
4277
4960
4240
11418
•944
19370
13793
185390
36615
•849
11093
76755
$609
0
710902
o
0
437685
1$43
14888
120945
•60S
4S2223
91561
7*142
9143
14814
o
$4527
050
•0669
42902
2M455
•
0~
•
•9347
139575
2978
1722
«'
109799
120034
1303
55454
0
$35064
10254
MI-S13
10106
0
0
155233
07 \
1206
14052
•010
$61
97394
19719
1404
2124
3190 I •»
0 '
11743
0 U24
721
11066
13547
•2124
• 1224!
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
0782
29539
24827
41206
0782
29539
24827
26827
24827
24827
26827
0782
24827
29539
24827
,0 29539
0 0 ' »539
0 4453 24827
0 •9060 13782
Wiet Se£
30060 I*539
441 *953*
0 *9539
• M£oo 24827
g ft*rr --
•02 *9539
0 29539
0 0782
2*447 29539
8852 JJj^
o i*539
281 MCT«
0' . ^9*vT
i .
11944 **^
132991 *1W6
1208 29539
26827
1
41206
24827'
0 **55*
|
.0020.65
-------
SATA
PLANT TOTAL
Mt 8UKR CAPITAL COSTS
144
145
14*
147
148
149
ISO
151
152
153
154
155
35*
157
158
159
1*0
1*1
1*2
1*3
1*4
1*5
16*
1*7
1*8
1*9
170'
171
2610
2814
4001
4003
4006*
4007
4006
4009
4014
4022
4023
4024
4026*
4027
4032
4042
4043
4044
4046
4047
4048
4050
4052
4057
40*4
40*6
4070
4072*
0
0
990103
12*1967
1057778
•08142
1149492
0
1*1861
•1007
73*542
198832
1273388
1210395
•67229
0
12*4*8
1537378
0
154045
0
•387*4
0
923985
0
0
•56557
9*0909
TOTAL
OIK COSTS I
290*89
140177
249*82
1001*2
007*4
0
•92*8
12470
22*2384
•9926
•52403
144097
00753
0
14584
1758984
0
94614
0
74097
7*960
0
c
74494
1731*4
Tom
.NBOntS 1
14197
42542
•5230
19288
12954*
117*
14*4
•771
1240
1787*
B52U
29243
2744
19*41
2982
382*
11243
4242
11340
CAPITAL
IUDOE COSTS 1
o
0
2201*
119104
U935
55*30
1210
1117
18063
7**73
wn
ZZ5S
fS794
191869
1*749
9
•588
A*t4V
15*3
7258
^••M^HMMHmHBl
0 6 M mTIACT MMJAL
UME COSTS 8MUI.IK COSTS W1ITOUK CCBTI
0 218197 24827
0 •90*0 33782
4741
25451
1*47
12024
• **o*c
1*1
240 17»12l
12505
14513
1*1
W 1
0
20200
4O22
• 4453
13782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
2*827
29539
29539
29539
' 2*827
29539
29539
0 S782
HOT g 29539
9 24046 14827
7*2 0 M627
9 03590 «*827
1419 0 *«27
0 22265 19539
9 93513 »539
JS7 0 13782
15*3 0 ty"9
49087*838
O4881046 12*70321
20247948
• - THE mtWiai Of 9UMT • 1293T TO T« 8CTI»ri01 Tl« *«LTSIS
W.LUTAMTS OUJ160 T« 8tTt*TIflH TW ASSI«8«IT 901 TStSi
TO 413 MOWS.
- - TK WLUSIOM Of 91AMT • 1293T TO Mi SCTnTIOl TII8I
»aujTAirrs CMABOB T* »tTnTi« TI« ASSISWCHT ra
TO 413 WUtS.
4*05*02
186SWUBED
110
10031719
110*8630
TBMi PtAirs not
tll*BU
00206B
-------
PUNT j
NUMBER |
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTS)
•I-
1 I
12 I
15 I
33 |
61 I
63 I
76 I
83 |
87 |
101 |
102 |
105 !
112 |
114 |
154 |
155 I
159 |
177 |
180 I
183 |
190 |
205 |
225 |
227 |
250 |
254 |
259 |
260 |
267 |
269 |
284 |
294 |
296 |
301 |
352 |
384 |
387 |
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CPU
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SSU AC CN BP
SS
BP
CP
CP
CP SS CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS W
CPU
CP
CP
CP
CP
SS
SS
AC
AC
CN
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CP SS CN BP
BP
CP BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
AC CN
CP
CP
CP
CP
SS
SS
BP
BP
BP
392 |
394 |
399 | CPU
412 |
415 | CP
443 | CP
444 1
446 | CP
»a
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
BP
BP
CN
BP
BP
III-815
002067
-------
1
PLANT |
NUMBER |
1-
447 |
451 |
481 |
485 |
486 |
488 |
500 |
502 |
518 |
523 |
525 |
536 |
569 |
580 |
602 |
608 1
611 |
614 |
633 |
657 |
659 |
662 |
663 I
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
819
825
844
859
866
871
876
877
IAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CF SS CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN
CPU SS AC CN BP
CF SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP CH
CP SS AC CN BP
CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CH
ss
CP SS AC CN BP
CP »T
CP ss »
CF BP
SS ft?
CF SS . »*
CP SS
CP " CH
CP __
i CP ss »
1 CPU CH
1 w*t
1 CF
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1 MONITORING COSTS ONLY
| CPU SS
I CF
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
I CP SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
1 CP SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN BF
1 MONITORING COSTS ONLY
| MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1 CPU SS
1 $s
CP SS AC CN BP
III-BU
0020^8
-------
PLANT | BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTS)
NUMBER |
883 MONITORING COSTS ONLY
888 | MONITORING COSTS ONLY
908 | CP
909 | CP SS BP
913 | CP SSU »
938 1 CN
942 1 MONITORING COSTS ONLY
948 | CP SS »*
956 |
962 | CP SS
970 I CP
973 1 CP CN BP
984 | CP
990 | CP
991 |
992 | SS
1012 | CP
1020 | CP
1033 | _.
1038 | CP »F
1059 | CPU
1061 1 CP CN
1062| MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1067 | CP J!
1133 | *;
1137 | CP ' S
1139 | SS «
1148 | CP
1149 | SS
1157 |
1203 | CP
1241 | CP JJ
1249 1 CP SS CN BP
1267 1 MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1299 I MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1319 MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CH
%#n
CH
W»«
CH
W*»
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
CP SS CN
CP SS
CP SS AC
CPU
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS
CP SS
BP
BP
BF
XII-B17
002069"
-------
PLANT | BAT WCHNOLOCY COSTED
NUMBER |
1414 |
1438 | CP
1439 | CP
1466 |
1464 |
1494 | CF
1520 | CP
1522 | CPU
1524 | CF
1532 | CF
1569 | CF
1572 | CPU
ss
SS AC
AC
SS
SS AC
SS AC CN
SS
SS
BP
BP
BF
1593 | MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1609 | CP
1616 | CP
1617 |
1618 |
1624 | CF
SS
SS
SS
SS
BF
1643 | MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1647 | CF
1650 | CP
SS
CS CN
1656 | MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1670 |
1684 |
1688 | CF
1695 | CP
1698 |
1714 | CP
1717 | CP
1724 | CP
1753 | CP
1766 | CP
1769 | CPU
1774 | CP
1785 | CPU
1802 | CP
1839 | CP
1869 |
1877 | CP
1881 | CP
1890 | CP
1905 | CP
1910 | CP
1911 | CP
1928 | CF
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
SS AC
ssu
SS
SS
SS AC CN
CN
AC CN
SS
»P
CH
BP CH
BF
•
BF
BF
BF
BP
BF
BF
BP
BP
XH-B18
002070
-------
PLANT 1
NUMBER |
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
•I
1937 |
1943 |
1973 |
1977 |
1986 |
2009 |
2020 |
2026 |
2030 |
2047 |
2049 |
2055 |
2062 |
2073 |
2090 |
2110 )
2148 |
2181 |
2193 |
2198 |
2206 |
2221 1
2222 1
2227 |
2228 |
2236 |
2242 |
2254 |
2268 |
2272 I
2281 !
2292 |
2296 |
2307 |
2313 |
2315 |
2316 |
2322 |
2328 |
2345 |
2353 I
2360 |
2364 |
2365 |
2368 |
BP
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS
CPU SS AC CN BP
5
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
CF ts
CP
CF ^^
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
BP
BP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CPU
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
BP
BP
AC
BP
AC BP
SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP ^N
CP SS AC CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
" SS
CP
CH
III-B19
U02071
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
1AT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2606
2626
2631
2633
2668
2673
2678
2680
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CPU SS AC CN BP
CP SS BP
CP
CPU
CP SS
CP BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CPU SS CN BP
CP SS
CP CN
CP SS BP
SS
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS AC CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CP SS BP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS BP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS BP
CP
CP SS AC
CPU
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
SS
SS
CP SS BP
CPU CN
CP
CP
CH
III-B20
002072
-------
PUNT
NUMBER
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
V W«r «*
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP
CP SS
BP
ss
CP SS AC CN »P
CP
CP SS
CP
Of
• A
BP
•P
Of
KB
Of
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS AC CN BP
CP CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
SS CN BP
CP
AC BP
NOTES:
CP
CPU
SS
ssu
AC
CN
BP
CH
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
STEAM STRIPPING
STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
ACTIVATED CARBON
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
CONTRACT HAULING
III-B21
002073
-------
PUNT
NUMBER
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
79
88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
158
161
162
163
166
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
. 232
240
244
249
257
262
266
276
283
285
292
293
297
PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
AC
AC
AC
MONITORING
CPU
CP
CP
CP
CP
c?
c?
.
CP
CP
CPU
ssu
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
MONITORING
CPU
CP
CP
CP
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
MONITORING
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CPU
CP
ss
ss
ss
ss
ssu
ss
ss
AC
AC
AC
CN
COSTS
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
COSTS
COSTS
CN
CN
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
III-B22
002074
-------
PLANT
NUMBER
PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTEP
299
302
310
321
326
334
348 |
354 |
357 |
417 |
423 |
428 |
430 |
433 |
438 |
449 I
451 |
458 |
468 |
492 |
494 |
508 |
522 |
529 1
543 |
544 |
567 |
592 |
605 |
607 |
618
624
658
661
667
702
706
717
720
C? ss
SS »*
SS »*
CP SS AC CN BP
CP SS »
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS AC 1?
ONLY
MONITORING COSTS
CP SS
CP SS CN
CP SS AC CN
SS
MONITORING COSTS
CP
CP
CP
CF
CF
CP
CF
SS
SS
ssu
SS
. SS
SS
SS
SS
CN
CN
AC CN
AC
BF
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BF
BP
BP
BP
SS AC CN BF
SS
SS
SS
ssu
SS
SS
AC CN
BF
BF
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CK
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
722
724
743
749
768
771
777
791
796
797
814
| CF
| CF
| CF
| CF
| CP
1
1
| CP
| CP
sa
SS
SS AC
SS
SS AC
AC
SS
SS AC
SS
VCT
CN
CN
CN
M*
BF
BF
BP
BF
BF
CH
BP
CH
BF
BF
III-B23
002075
-------
PLANT | PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
NUMBER |
830 |
845 | CP
846 |
862 | CP
874 | CP
880 |
887 | CP
90S | CPU
912 |
917 | CP
929 |
931 |
932 |
944 |
9S8 |
975 |
976 |
987 |
988 |
992 |
997 | CP
1006 | CP
1011 | CP
1018 | CP
1026 |
1047 |
1052 | CP
1053 | CP
1057 |
1064 |
1069 | CP
1076 |
1083 | CP
1085 |
1086 |
1091 | CP
1094 |
1107 |
1117 |
1126 | CPU
1162 |
1163 | CP
1172 |
1173 |
1175 |
1181 | CP
1188 | CP
1191 | CP
1194 {
1195 |
AC
SS AC
ss
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
AC
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS
SS AC
SS
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
CN BP
CN BP
BP
BP
BP
CN BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
III-B24
002076
-------
PLANT | WES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
NUMBER |
1197 | CP SS
1202 | SS
1219 | AC
1220 | SS
1223 | CP
1224 | AC
1234 | SS
1236 | CP SS
1237 | SS
1249 | CP SS
1253 | SS
1255 | SS
1264 | CP SS AC
1277 | CP SS
1310 | CP SS
1313 |
1314 |
1320 | SS
1322 | CP SS
1326 | SS
1351 | CP SS AC
1352 |
1356 | CP SS AC
1357 | CPU SS
1361 | CP SS AC
1371 |
1366 |
1426 | CP
1432 | CP SS
1433 |
1437 | SS
1450 |
1678 | CP SS AC
1504 | CP SS
1507 | SS
1528 | SS
1534 | CPU SS
1535 |
1539 | CP SS
1548 |
1556 | SS
1560 | CP SS AC
1562 | CP SS
1564 |
1566 |
1575 |
1595 | SS
1601 |
1608 | CP SS AC
1621 | CP SS
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CM BP
CM BP
BP
BP
BP CH
BP
BP CH
BP
BP
CM BP
BP CH
CM BP
BP
CM BP
CH
CH
CM BP
BP
CH,
CM BP
BP CH
CH BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
BP
CH
CM BP
CH
CH
BP CH
BP
CM
CH BP
III-B25
0^2077
-------
PLANT | fSBS TECHNOLOGY COSTED
NUMBER |
1622 | CP
1628 | CP
1645 1 CP
1653 |
1657 | CP
1659 | CP
1666 | CP
1667 | CP
1706 |
1716 | CP
1718 |
1740 | CP
1742 | CP
1743 | CP
1744 | CP
1748 | CP
1751 | CP
1764 | CP
1773 |
1788 |
1793 | CP
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
ssu
SS AC
SS AC
SS
SS
SS AC
SSU
SS
SS
SS AC
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
1797 | MONITORING
1801 | CP
1805 |
1808 |
1812 |
1826 | CP
1832 |
1833 | CP
1838 |
1843 |
1848 | CPU
1853 | CP
1861 | CP
1876 | CP
1887 |
1888 |
1891 |
1894 | CP
1899 | CP
1904 | CP
1924 |
1931 | CP
1936 | CP
1945 |
1948 |
1970 |
1971 | CP
1974 |
1988 |
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS
SS
SS
SS
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
COSTS
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
BP
IP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BF
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH '
CH
CH
II1-B26
-------
PUNT | PSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
NUMBER |
1993 | SS
2001 | SS
2004 I SS
2007 | CP SS AC CN
2018 | CP AC
2022 |
2033 I
2037 | CP SS
2050 |
2057 | SS
2070 1 CP SS AC CN
2075 | CP SS
2080 | CP
2084 | SS
2093 1 CP SS
2108 | MONITORING COSTS
2117 | CP SS
2123 | CP
2129 CP SS AC CN
2147
2176 CP SS
2177 SS
2184 SS CN
2191
2214 _
2232 CP SS CN
2241 CP SS
2243 CP SS AC CN
2250 CP SS
2253
2259 CP SS AC
2261 CP SS AC
2262
2288 SS
2293 SS
2300 CP SS
2311 CP SS
2318 CP SS
2341 CP SS
I 2346 CP
I 2348 CP AC
2350 CP SS AC
| 2359 SS
1 2402
BP CH
•h*h
Br
BP
BP
CH
%Mft
•hW
BP
CH
BP
fliB
BF
tt«M
BP
ONLY
•* •»
BP
BP
CH
w»*
BP
•p
of
CH
BP
aw
BP
BP
•k w
BP
BP
BP
BP CH
M'
•h«t
BP
«h«k
BF
•m
BP
K •%
BP
• A
BP
C
*PI
• 2411 CP
2426 MONITORING COSTS ONLY
I 2432 AC
i 2436 CP
2442 | CP SS AC
2459 CP SS
BP
.
BP
III-B27
0^2079
-------
• • * •
1 !
i
I
1
1
1
1
LAST | *SE
UMBER 1
1
2462 | CP
2465 1 CP
2469 | CP
2485 1 CP
2487 | CP
2495 | CP
dh. » A a I ^O
^TECHNOLOGY
c c JL.C ^5W
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
fiS
COSTED
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
_ 4
1
1
1
• 1
1
0*9 !
*^ ^ ^ 1
2501 | CP
2507 | I _
2517 I CP SS
I
BP CH |
COSTS ONLY 1
2524 | CP SS
BP
BP
BP
CH t
I ***** i w* __ »*• »r i
i «?»!« 5 « CH » !
*»*' i a* *r
2548 | CP SS AC
2565 \ CP SS AC
2571 |
BP
CH |
! 2571 1 MONITORING COSTS ONLY ^ I
2581 |
2608 t
I 2609 | CP
I _ »m. t i
CH I
I
2636 | CP SS
AC
2641 I
2642 |
2646 I
I ._ ^ * • •
SS
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH I
«
COSTS ONLY I
SS
JSr « ss AC
| _^ — •*•! • ^**D
SS
2679 | CP
2685
2699 |
2714 | CP SS
2736
2741 |
2748 I
SS
SS
SS
BP
BP
BP
BF
BP
BP
SS - *S S S 1
2776 I CP SS
2779 |
I 2793 I
2794 I
( A M & * •
SS
SS
AC CN BP
BP
BP
AC
1 Isoll MONITORING COSTS ONLY ^ I
2810
CH
4001 | CP SS AC
4003 | C? SS
4006 t CP SS
4007 I fS
4008 | CP SS
• _ _ _ a A C
BP
BP
AC CH
CK BP
IXI-B28
002Q60|
-------
PUNT | FSES TECHNOLOGY COSTED
NUMBER |
4009 |
4014 | CP
4022 |
4023 |
4024 | CP
4026 | CP
4027 | CP
ssu
SS
SS AC
SS
4032 1 CP SS AC
4042 | MONITORING
4043 | CP
4044 | CP
4046 |
4047 1 CP
4048 |
4050 | CP
4052 |
4057 | CP
4064 |
4066 |
4070 | CP
4072 | CP
SS AC
SSU
SS
SS
SS
SS AC
CN
CN
CN
COSTS
CN
CN
CN
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
ONLY
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
at
CH
t*u
Cn
CH
CH
NOTES:
CP • CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
CPU - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
SS • STEAM STRIPPING
SSU - STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
AC • ACTIVATED CARBON
CN - CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
BP • BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
CH - CONTRACT HAULING
HI-B29
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB -7 1992
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
Division (WH-552)
Supplement to the Record of the Proposed Amendments to
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point
Source Category Regulation —
George M. Jet
Project Offie
Engineering &
The Record
Attached is an erratum and supplemental ^~"™ *•?* J1/
record of the proposed amendments for the Organic Chemicals,
llaltics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Point Source Category
regulation that Jere proposed in the F^eral Register on December
6, 1991 (56 FR 63897).
SUBJECT:
the
FROM;
TO:
ability to adequately evaluate supporting information to the
Sece^er 6, ^Tproposal. The erratum for EPA 440/l-91/009a was
added to the record on January 22, 1992.
Correction of the errors found in EPA 4 4 0/1-9 I/ 009a required
a reassessment of the economic analysis. The resulting erratum to
ShHIonomic support document (Re-Evaluation of th? Ec°nomico^^^
analvsis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Organic
ChlmicaL, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Industry Using Revised
Compliance Costs) is included in this supplement.
\
Also, two record memorandum, one which was iM*yertently left
out of the January 22, 1992 submission and another which has been
generated to assist reviewers in their comment responses, are now
added to the proposed OCPSF record.
The attached supplement completes the record for the December
6, 1991 proposed OCPSF rulemaking package.
-------
r
INTER OFFICE MEMO
January 8, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
OCPSF Record
Art Shattuck
Omission of Pint 1293T from Table III-8 of th« Supplement
to the OCPSF Development Document
SAIC Project No. 01-0835-03-0127-000
SSM
biotogicil treatment systems will be changed a. follows:
For Pollutant #34 (2 ,4-Dimethylphenol) , all BAT «ubpart J and
Dlants with raw waste concentrations Breuter than 10
liU be costed for an in-pl.nt biological tre.tment
with a detention time of 413 hours; pin t^ with raw
-z;^™^^^^
with a detention time of 84 hours.
Pollutant #55 (Naphthalene), .11 BAT Subp.rt J and PSES
costed for an in-plant biological treatment: system with a
detention time of 84 hours.
For Pollutant #80 (Fluor.n.) , all BAT **?•«*«>*
olants with raw waste concentrations greater Khan 0.5 mg/1
Smie clstld for an in.plant biological tr.ament system
with a detention time of 413 hour. ; PUn« ; w ith «»<«•"
concentrations above trigger levels but below 0.. Imgl will
be costed for an in-plant biological treatment system with a
detention time of 84 hours.
For the remaining 15 remanded pollutants (excluding P*»««ol).
.11 BAT Subpart J and PSES plants %*th raw waste
concentration above trigger lev.ls will be «os<:.d for an in-
pUnt biological treatment system with a detention time of 84
hours .
-------
OCPSF Record
Page 2 of 2
January 8, 1992
on detention time changes; costs for BAT Subp.rt J plant, rem.in
unchanged. Table 1 lists the PSES plants affected by the change In
«stln| methodology and Indicate, the change in det.;ntion ti». and the
remand Id pollutant vhich caused the change. Table 2 Pr"!y*fSr
revised in-plant biological treataent «ystea costs before and after
the change in the costing methodology.
AS/dg
Attachment
cc: E. Forsht, USEPA, Washington, DC
G. Jett, USEPA, Washington, DC
-------
I
-------
r
g
1
i!
• M
M ™
K „
M M
3 u
I I
H
S
f
s
u
2
?
1
H *»>
M
l!
** i
58
8 g
*J
i!
Ij
e i
< s
i
i
••
.
s
i
£
fi Si
ill
III
•••••s
22;
2"«
ggg
sSs
sss
1
to
6
8
•4
It
** 'ff
III
HI
•• _ «g
S N **
rt
ggo
o
M •< •
i* « m
ssa
M X
§
A
1
ti t
hi
ih
£ M M
1^
S2«
0
Oil
* * 2
ass
•«
^
• it
"1
8
1
i!i
III
Sis
M « **
ggg
« r> m
M « N
22s
i
1
8
I
1 tt t
||i||
l||||
"••»•»»
M « « ** *
«* r>
g-ggs
e o
SH ft
-------
.. I TABLE 1
PSES PLANTS5 AFFECTED BT THE
CHANGE IN COSTING METHODOLOGY
DETENTION TIME CHANGE
79
430
830
944
1047
1094
1194
1220
1234
1356
84 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 -• 413
84 - 413
130 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
84 - 413
POLLUTANT
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
! Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
i Naphthalene
! Naphthalene
2,4-Dimethylphenol,
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene, Fluorene,
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
2,4-iDime thy Iphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-DimethyIphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-DimethyIphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-DimethyIphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-DimethyIphenol
2, ,4- Dime thy Iphenol
2,4«DimethyIphenol
2,4 •• Dime thy Iphenol
2,4-DimethyIphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
-------
TABLE 1
FSES PLANTS AFFECTED BT THE
CHANGE IN COSTING METHODOLOGY
PLANT #
P1ANT A PLANTS C37
facilities) eonc'd:
1608
1659
1666
1716
1744
1793
1876
1894
2007
2129
2465
2548
2677
4006
4026
4072
DETENTION TIME CHANGE
130 - 413
130 - 413
130 - 413
130 - 413
130 - 413
130 - 413
130 - 413
130 - 413
130 413
130 413
130 413'
130 413
130 413
130 413
130 - 413
130 - 413
POLLUTANT
2 ,4-Diatthylphcnol
2 ,4-Dio*thylph«nol
2,4-Diffl«thylphenol
2 , 4 • D lot thy Iphcno 1
2 , 4 • Dim* thy Iphcno 1
2 , 4-DiiM thylphtnol
2,4-DImethylphenol
2 , 4 - D im« thy Ipheno 1
2 ,4-Dlm«thylphenol
2 ,4-Dlm«thylph«nol
2 , 4 • D line thy lph«no 1
2 ,4-Dimethylphenol
2 ,4-Dia«thylph«nol
2 ,4-Dtm«thylph«nol
2 ,4-DImethylphenol
2 ,4-Dln«thylph«nol
-------
ScMne* Application! lnt«m»tlon»l Corpontlon
An Empioy9+O*r*
-------
| PLANT
| NUMBER
1
12
15
33
61
63
76
83
87
. 101
102
105
112
114
154
155
159
177
180
PLANT BY PLANT BAT TECHNOLOGIES COSTED
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOVRATES (MGD) .
SS 0.012
SS 0.0016
SS 0.02
SS 0.0904
SS 0.1624
SSU 0.1292
SS 0.254
SS 0.397
SS 0.026
• 93
"•S-^fSS 0.348
ft J*?O
*.o5 4— ^o>"
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
L '-46
SS 0.02323
SS 0.044
SS 0.3444
SS 1.0848
SS 1.253
SS 0.029
SS 0.0452
SS 0.045
SS 1.48
SS 0.0042
SS 0.0101
AC 0.0016
AC 0.088
AC 0.1258
AC 0.1232
AC 0.088
AC 1.056
AC 0.0042
CP 0.0019
CP 0.02
CPU 0.457
CP 0.104
CP 0.0063
CP 0.1487
CP 0.254
CP 0.04
CP 0.397
CP 0.026
CPU 0.1456
CP 0.104
CP 0.2016
CP 0.207
CP 0.253
CP 0.044
CP 0.768
CP 0.06
CP 0.654
CP 1.248
CP 0.0021
CP 1.358
CP 13.8
CPU 8.54
CP 2.504
CP 0.0042
CP 0.0151
CN 0.012
CN 0.0072
CN 0.02
CN 0.4
CN 0.5719
CN 0.397
CN 0.56
CN 0.0288
CN 0.044
CN 0.768
CN 4.8
CN 0.0042
BP 0.021
BP 0.0016
BP 0.02
BF 0.088
BP 0.0011
BP 0.1258
BP 0.089
BP 0.397
BP 0.209
BP 0.348
BP 0.1232
BF 0.088
BF 0.1728
'.
BP 0.044
BP 0.1483
BP 0.009
BP 0.0075
BP 0.0499
BP 1.056
BP 0.0172
BP 2.493
BP 0.045
BP 0.68
BP 0.041
BP 0.0221
CH 0.00025
1
CH 0.0005 |
1
j
-------
" PLANT" BY" PLANT" BAT TECHNOLOGIES COSTED
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MOD) .
BER
447
451
481
485
486
488
500
502
518
523
525
536
569
580
602
608
611
614
633 |
1 7 "|
1 -J^ j
663 |
664 |
669
682
1683
1 695
1 709
§727
1 741
1 758
[775
1 802
1 811
1 814
1 819
1 825
1 844
1 851
1 859
1 866
1 871
1 876
1 Q77
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
0;5396 cp"~o:5396
f* f\ ^rt^ft CPU 0 3oX^t
0 314X AC w • ju3o v* v ** •
* CP 0 0057
0 0057 »* •
-. AO 7A CP 0 0442
0 03 84 AC u « u ^ • " , »* *
0.1185 AC 0.2595 CP 0.177
SS 0.00727 AC 0.00727 CP 0.00727
SS
SS
SS
iff-
— 6^1
.* ss^**
-^SS.j,
SS
SS
SS
1
1
1
1
| SS
1
1
| SS
| SS
1 ss
1
| SS
1
1
| SS
1 ss
I SS
0.0009 AC 0.0019 ' CP 0.0013
g °'T442
>^'05 rp 0 411
*+. f\ n c ' L^JT U • *» • »
f*olll CP 0.062
n 385 1 CP 0.385
"•*'••'• |
| CP 1.628
n z.88 1 CP 0.857
°'488 CPU 0.898
1
•
! CP 0.644
1 *
!
"cN*""o.5396 BP 0.5396
CH
I
CN 0.0043
CN 1-39 BP 0.3058
CN 0.0057 BP 0.0057
CN 0.17 BP 0.0374
'
CH
CN 0.5 BP 0.2595
CN 0.144
CN 0.00727 BP 0.00727
BP i 0.046
CH
CN 0.00374 BP ! 0.0019
BP 0.00144
BP 1.42
BP 0.33
j CH
BP 0.488
BP 0.898 |
i wfl
0 492 1 1 CPU 0.492 .
°' , J CP 0.973
n .10. ! ' CP 0.598 CN 2.3 BP 0.506
°15016 AC 1.016 CP 1.016 CN 1.016 BP 1.016
0'.104 1 CP 0.186 |
1.349
CN 0.9851 BP 0.9288
I
0.0353 CPU 0.3501 i
0°022737 AC 0.0519 CP 0.0354 CN 0.1 IF;. 0.0319
0.0001
0.000028
0.00013
0.00028
0.00034
-------
(PLANT
(NUMBER
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
956
. 962
970
973
984
990
991
992
1012
1020
1033
PLANT BY PLANT BAT TECHNOLOGIES COSTEO
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOURATES (MGD) .
SS 0.621
SSU 1.956
SS 0.28
SS 0.03
SS 0.016
8-f" / £38>
9 4- /?£"•?
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
j 09
i
SS 0.0234
SS 1.8734
SS 0.0129
SS 0.00462
SS 0.61
SS 0.3234
SS 0.291
SS 0.415
SS 1.09
AC 0.291
CP 0.554
CP 0.2
CP 1.759
CP 0.841
CP 0.03
CP 0.635
CP 0.325
CP 0.03
CP 0.062
CP 0.579
CP 0.191
CP 1.988
CPU 1.511
CP 0.2627
CP 0.02
CP 1.0545
CP 2.29
CP 0.115
CP 0.28
CP 0.0132
CP 0.61
CP 0.21983
CP 0.291
CPU 0.0028
CP 0.415
CP 0.415
CP 1.09
CN 0.492
CN 1.25
„
CN 0.2627
CN 0.103
'
CN 0.00462
CN 0.61
BP 0.621
BP 0.233
BP 0.189
BP 0.275
BP 0.155
BP 0.04
BP 0.07
BP 0.5772
BP 0.00078
BP 0.28
BP 0.0538
BP 0.00462
BP 0.61
BP 0.314
BP 1.09
CH 0.00016
CH 0.00001
CH 0.0002
CH 0.0001
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
•
I
1
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
p^^NT* BY* PLANT BAT TECHNOLOGIES COSTED
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD) .
JMBER| •-• •
L414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1593
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
•• — * """ "" - j
SS ' CP 0.276 1
SS 0.12 AC 0.225
AC 0.0931
SS 0.091
SS 0.497 AC 1.289
SS 0.0142 AC 0.0138
SS 1.7
SS 0.1
SS 0.22
SS 0.8065
SS 0.068
SS 0.00073
1643 _ 161*
i fSS 0.367
JJ SS 0.91
1056 /t50
1670
1684
1688 1
1695 SS 0.614 |
CP 0.105 |
1
CP 1.289 |
CP 0.0163 | CN 0.0628
CPU 5.71 |
CP 0.0637 |
CP 0.117 |
CP 0.1 |
CPU 2.725 1
• • *
CP 0.27 |
CP 0.111 |
I
1
i
CP 0.00073 |
|
CP 0.125- |
CP 9.155 | CN 8.343
j
j
CP 0.165 |
CP 1.049 |
i
E = °°- 5 S:SSl
H24 SS 0.0018 AC 0.0018 CP 0 0018 j
1 * ^ e «s w* • • • »» 1
11766 CP 0.294 |
Il769 SS 2.6 AC 2.2 CPU 3.1 |
1 t ^P 3*3 1
1 1 "77/L 1 W* • * * 1
11785 SSU 0.0938 CPU 0.75 |
1 :&Qi \ CP 0.54 |
J1839 1 SS 0.0053 CP 0.0053 J
1 1877 | SS 0.0859 AC 0.0836 CP 0.0988 | CN 0.38
I {HI \ CP 6.156 | CN 0.0724
1 ion? CP 0.00817 |
1 I905 1 Ar 0 1&0& cp o 1659 CN 0.63
1 I910 1 AC °'1 r? 0 358
I lqll i 1 CP 0.35S |
l"?8|SS 0.0038 1 CP 0.00381
BP 0.0138
BP 0.027
BP 0.05
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
0.068
9.307
0.015
1.513
0.0018
BP 0.392
BP 0.0836
BP 0.059
BP 0.00817
BP 0.1404
BP 0.352
BP 0.0038
CH 0.00001
CH 0.0003
I ^WB
-------
| PLANT
(NUMBER
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
PLANT BY PLANT BAT TECHNOLOGIES COSTED
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD) .
•
SS 0.0568
SS 0.0374
SS 0.01
SS 0.148
SS 0.0112
SS 1.076
' ^8 •(— P'^xpP-1«*
t j ^-ISS" 0.1
^n
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
.SS 0.172
^"~"s>» ?rU3 1
SS 0.593
SS 0.00302
SS 0.014
•
SS 0.299
SS 1.127
SS 0.0077
SS 0.0007
SS 0.2644
'
SS 0.0061
L °^68
AC 0.0553
AC 0 . 1441
AC 0.17
•
AC 0.0041
AC 0.0075
AC 0.0007
AC 0.2574
CP 0.0653
CP 1.18
CPU 0.1703
CP 0.052
CP 0.031
CP 0.0077
CP 0.472
CP 0.0187
CP 0.807
CP 0.211
CP 0.172
CP 1.5
CP 3.97
CP 0.00302
CP 0.00565
CP 0.1506
CP 0.6152
CP 0.035
CP 0.8055
CP 0.0049
CPU 0.0088
CP 0.221
CP 0.0008
CP 0 . 3042
CP 0.1597
CP 0.47
CP 0.0089
CF 0.938
CN 0.2513
CN 0.655
CN 0.031
.
CN 0.0922
CN 0.807
CN 0.034
CN 0.1105
CN 0.003
CN 1.17
BP 0.0553
BP 0.186
BP 0.1441
BP 0.472
BP 0.002
BP 0.1
BP 0.06
BP 0.032
BP 0.322
BP 0.0041
BP . 0.0075
BP 0.0007
BP 0.2574
BP 0.0231
CH 0.0002
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
-------
PLANT" BY" PLANT BAT TECHNOLOGIES COSTED ;
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (HGD) .
MBER -
376 SS 0.051
390
394 SS 0.00658
399
400
419
429 SS 0.0034 AC 0.0033
430 SS 2.179
445
447
450 SS 0.824
461
471
474 SS 0.29
•481 SS 0.2079
•527
[528 SS 0.652
E531 SS 0.185
P33 |
r "*6 •(— -P^j5 **
CP 1.987
CP 0.0359
CPU 0.0039
CP 1.307
CP 0.43
CPU 0.0058
CP 0.684
CP 0.0083
CPU 0.312
CP 0.92
CP 1.25
CP 1.377
CP 0,252
CP 0.0287
Litis^ °-25 AC °-25 cp °*25
P556 __ * 9-1 Q
Er "s I as
12606 | 1
2626 1 ' rp 0 1557
2631 , SS 1.2747 , « 0.1337
12633 | 1
12668 | 1 rp 0 0022
226678 ' SS °'°146 <* ° "2
I268Q 1 SS 0.045 AC 0.051 CP 0.006
1
12695 1 SS 0.969 CP 0.979
12701 | SS 0.506
12711 | SS 0.0371 .
I ,7,c i ss n 355 CP z.ies
• 2735 | SS U.J33 Q 1242
B O 7 ^ Q 1 ***«*^»^^
12763 CP °'616
1 2763 ' CP 0.787
Mil* I CP °-0117
CN 0.015
CN 0.334
CN 2.25
CN 0.25
-
CN 0.219
CN 0.506
BP 0.0033
BP 2.179
BP 0.0011 1
BP 0.022
BP Ci.443
.
BP 0.219
BP 0.001
BP 0.1154-
BP 0.0022
. BP 1.81
\
CH 0.00001
BP 0.0117
A j~> ^t
-------
[PLANT
|NUMBER
PLANT BY PLANT BAT TECHNOLOGIES COSTED
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD) .
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
.4010
4017
4018
4021
4037
4040
4051
4055
SS 0.03
SS 0.0371
SS 0.0043
SS 0.569
SS 0.0127
SS 0.039
SS 0.0074
AC 0.0042
AC 0.0123
AC 0.039
AC 0.0015
CP 0.03
CP 0.0049
CP 0.0192
CP 0.569
CP 3.004
CP 0.0146
CP 0.0854
CP 0.039
CP 0.116
CN 0.019
CN 0.056
CN 0.0854
CN 0.039
CN 0.0074
BP 0.0042
BP 0.2828
BP 0.274
BP 0.01
BP 0.14
BP 0.0123
BP 0.0854
BP 0.039
BP 0.0074
BP 0.0015
NOTES j
CP - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
CPU • CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
SS - STEAM STRIPPING
SSU - STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
AC - ACTIVATED CARBON
CN - CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
BP - BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
-------
PLANT
NUMBER)
2
. . . . .
5 SS 0
10 SS 0
22 SS
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
79
88
93
94
110
1 111
1 119
E 120 |
221"
-434
I 149 T
1 158
ll 161
ll 163
ii •"•
ll 166
ll I96
ll 1"
It 203
|| 206
• 1
|| 209
ll 212
ll 214
l| 220
ll 221
ll 232
1 | 240
ll 244
1 1 249
| 1 257
1 1 '262
1 1 266
1 1 276
m 183
SS
p
1
.02719
.00124
0.019 AC
0.2027
AC
SS 0.1187
SS 0.0542 AC
SS 0.00482
SSU
SS
SS
SS
SS
ss.a
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
| SS
1
| SS
| SS
| SS
.
0.0023 AC
0.0065
0.004 AC
0.0017 AC
0.0022 |
0.005
0.0157
% 0.003
0.0067 AC
0.1395 AC
0.006 AC
AC
0.1062 AC
AC
0.0016
0.0071
0.213
0.0034
0.0698
0.105
0.8143
0.0162
AC
0.0011 AC
0.0013
0.7
[ANT BY P1ANT PSES TECN
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWR
CP 0.002
0.0415
0.05
0.0528
0.0022
0.004
0.0017
0.0066
0.1358
0.006
0.015
0.1034
0.086
0.1
0.0011
| SSU 0.697
CP 0.00186
CP 0.0283
CP
0.075
CP 0.0624
CP 0.00227
CPU
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CPU
CPU
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
1
0.0026
0.004
0.002
OLOGIES COSTED
ATES (MGD). I
•
........
BP 0.00272
BP 0.0415
BP
BP
0.64
0.1187
CN 0.0624 BP 0.0528
BP 0.00596
I
\
CN 0.0026 BP
BP
BP
BP
CN 0.002 BP
j BF
•
0.005 I BP
1 BP
0.002
0.0077
0.1605
0.006
0.1222
0.0107
0.0004
0.098
0.0715
0.1145
0.0162
0.04
0.0013
0.0013
CN 0.002 | BF
CN 0.0077 | BP
|
CN 0.1605 | BP
CN 0.006 | Bl?
CN 0.1222 | BP
| BP
1 |
| BP
| BP
| BP
| BP
| BP
| IP
| BP
I
1 BP
| UP
CN 0.0013 | BP
| UP
1
i BP
'
CH
0.0022
0.0065
CH
0.0324
0.004
0.0017
CH
0.0021
0.005
0.0157
0.002
0.0066 1
| CH
0.1358 |
| CH
0.006 |
I
0.1034 |
0.086 |
0.0016 |
0.0156 |
1
0.0018 | CH
0.246 |
0.0034 |
0.2915 |
1
0.9 |
1
0.01623 I
0.28 |
0.0011 I
0.0013 |
1
0.697 |
0.0005
•
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
"
0.0008
-------
| PLANT
| NUMBERJ
285
292
293
Art"!
297
299
302
310
321
326
334
348 j
354
357
417
423
428
430 |
433
438
449
SS
ss
SS
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
51-f-^'S
-*58
468
492 I
*" 1
494 |
508 |
522 |
529 1
543 |
544 |
567 |
592 |
605 I
607 |
618 I
624 |
658 |
661 |
667 |
702 |
706 |
717 |
720 |
722 |
1 724 J
•43 |
ss
ss
ssu
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ssu
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
1
0.0344 |
0.1424 | AC
1
1
0.032 j
0.02178 |
0.0015 |
0.009 | AC
0.0009 1
|
0.0453 | AC
i
I
j
0.345 |
j
0.33 |
0.0217 | AC
0.051 |
I
/ J
0.88 1
0.0086 |
i
0.431 |
|
0.065 | AC
0.003 |
0.011 j
|
0.001 | AC
0.0225 j
|
0.0136 | AC
j
0.7444 |
0.0265 |
0.00096 | AC
j
0.0044 |
0.0045 |
i
0.0424 |
1.798 |
0.0016 j
0.0042 | AC
PLANT BY PLANT PSES TECNOLOCIES COSTED
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD) .
0.1386
0.0088
0.0453
0.0211
0.065
0.001
0.0132
0.00096
0.0042
i
CP 0.0344 | CN
CPU 0.1638 | CN
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
0.041 |
0.153 I
1
1
1
1
0.0104 j CN
0.0009 |
j
0.0453 |
0.03 1
1
0.74 | CN
0.025 | CN
1
| CN
0.0088 j CN
1
0.065 | CN
•
0.001 |
1
0.0156 | CN
1
0.1414 |
0.0271 |
0.00096 j CN
1
1
I
0.254 | CN
0.0042 |
1
0.0344 j BP
0.1638 | BP
| BP
l
i BP
1 BP
1 BP
0.0104 j BP
| BP
0.702
0.025
0.34
0.0088
0.065
0.0156
0.00096
1.5435
1
| BP
1
1
1
1
| BP
| BP
| BP
1
1
| BP
1 BP
| BP
1 BP
1
1 BP
| BP
1
| BP
1 BP
1
| BP
1
1 BP
1 BP
1 BP
1
1 BP
1 BP
1 BP
1 BP
| BP
1 BP
| CH
0.0344 |
0.1386 1
0.0008 | CH
i
0.032 |
0.02143 I
0.0015 |
0.0088 |
0.0038 |
0.0453 |
| CH
1
| CH
1.2159 |
0.0211 |
0.0508 |
1
I CH
0.8 |
0.0036 |
0.00235 | CH
0.431 I
| CH
0.065 |
1
0.011 |
| CH
0.001 |
0.0225 |
| CH
0.0132 |
| CH
0.9684 |
0.111 |
0.00096 |
| CH
0.0044 j
0.0035 |
0.264 |
1
0.2548 |
0.0016 |
0.0042 |
0.00002
0.00005
0.0002 1
1
0.0005 1
1
0.0001 1
0.00023 1
I
0.0002 1
I
I
0.00005 I
1
0.00037 I
0.0005 1
0.00003 1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
P^ANT" BY" PLANT PSES TECNOLOGIES COSTED ;
£J^R WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES^(MGD) _ __ -
749
768
771
777
791
796
797
814
830
845
846
862
874
880
887
905
912
SS 0.0095
SS 0.0007
SS 0.0031
SS 0.0023
SS 0.519
SS 0.06002
SS 0.257
SS 0.1982
SS 0.0016
917
1 929 1 SS 0.0008
I *
CP 0.0142
AC - 0 0007 CP 0.0008
AC 0.0331 CP 0.0331
AC 0.0022 CP 0.0026
CP 0.598
AC 0.0111 CP 0.0111
AC 0 06002 CP 0.06002
CP 0.257
CP 0.1068
AC 0.0016 CPU 0.0016
CP 0.018
W* w • »»^
•
w-i^Yz.
1 958
1 975 SS 0.012
1 976 SS 0.12
ll 987
l| 988
|| 992 SS 0.016
|| 997 SS 0.0025 cp A QQ2
lilSi SS 0.0476 CP 0.?476
l| 1026
l!lU2|S». OOul CP 0.0244
|!io53|SS 00135 CP 0.00354
BP 0.0208 |
CN 0.0008 BP 0.0007 |
BP 0.0478
j CH 0.0001
BP ' 0.0031
j CH 0.0003
CN 0.0026 BP 0.0022
CN 0.598 BP 0.506
BP 0 . 00064
,'
CN 0.0476
, • ,
ll 1057 |
1 1 106A 1 rp 0*57
1) 1069 | cp u;
|!I!M III 0.0013 CP 0.0019
ll 1085 |
1 ! ISSl 1 'll 0°0678 AC 0.066 CP 0.078 CN 0.078
1 I •-. 094 | AC 0.0686 |
m 07 I SS 0.036 1
BP 0.06002
BP 0.1982
BP 0.0016
BP 0.0008
BP 0.0009
B? 0.0188
B? 0.011
BP 0.12
BP 0.0007
Bl? 0.016
B? 0.0025
B? 0.002
BP 0.0476
BP 0.125
BP 0.0358
BP 0.00354
BP 0.0006
BP 0.0028
HP 0.0012
BP 0.073
UP 0.066
HP 0.0686
CH 0.00032
CH 0.0003
1
CH 0.00006
I
CH 0.00029 |
1
1
CH 0.00049
CH 0.00001 |
CH 0.00045 |
I
1
CH 0.0009
CH 0.0004
CH 0.0005
CH '0.0002
CH 0.00015
CH 0.00014
CH 0 . 0006
. !
CH 0.00002
1 '
i
-------
| PLANT PLANT BY PLANT PSES TECNOLOGIES COSTED
j NUMBER) WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD) .
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
1191
1194
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
-•236
SS 0.00472
SS 0.1469
SS 0.127
SS 0.0135
SS 0.1642
SS 0.051
SS 0.0068
SS 0.00117
SS 0.0014
SS 0.0175
SS 0.0033
SS ,-0.01
SS L??T0.03
37-T'S'S * , 0.007
,*49.v
'1253
1255
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1371
1386
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
I 1478
SS^O.0129
TS" 0.0078
SS 0.02145
SS 0.0011
SS 0.013
SS 3.347
SS 0.00191
SS 0.025
SS 0.002
SS 0.0042
SS 0.0021
SS 0.0006
SS 0.0572
SS 0.0194
SS 0.0945
SS 0.001
04 vj SS 0.021
AC 0.143
AC 0.0251
AC 0.0066
AC 0.316
AC 0.122
AC 0.0011
AC 0.0042
AC 0.0021
AC 0.0557
AC 0.001
CPU 0.169
CP 0.0053
CP 0.0251
CP 0.014
CP 0.0078
CP 0.0021
CP 0.0026
CP 0.0307
CP 0.0132
CP 0.0013
CP 0.013
CP 0.08
CP 0.0125
CP 0.0042
CP 0.0021
CPU 0.0006
CP 0.0658
CP 0.0936
CP 0.0354
CP 0.0012
CP 0.016
CN 0.169
CN 0.0082
CN 0.0078
CN 0.0132
CN 0.0013
CN 0.0042
CN 0.0021
CN 0.0658
CN 0.0936
CN 0.0045
CN 0.0012
BP 0.00072
BP 0.143
BP 0.0296
BP 0.1642
BP 0.0006
BP 0.0251
BP 0.0078
BP 0.00179
BP 0.0021
BP 0.0031
BP 0.015
BP 0.316
BP 0.0022
BP 0.0026
BP 0.122
BP 0.01
BP 0.1253
BP 0.00702
BP 0.0538
BP 0.0011
BP 0.107
BP 0.08
BP 0.00052
BP 0.00057
BP 0.00191
BP 0.0125
BP 0.01612
BP 0.0042
BP 0.00052
BP 0.0021
BP 0.0026
BP 0.0557
BP 0.0936
BP 0.0249
BP 0.0945
BP 0.00052
BP 0.001
BP 0.016
1
CH 0.000503
CH 0.0004
CH 0.000115 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
CH 0.00026 I
1
CH 0.00011 •
1
I
1
CH 0.00026 H
1
1
I
CH 0.0005 |
CH 0.0001 III
1
I
CH 0.000032 H
IB
CH 0.00026 ||
1
-------
•PLANT
JUMBERI
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1595
1601
1 1608
I 1621
• 1622
• 1628
IT
I 1659"
• 1666
• 1667
"""PLANT'BY PLANT PSES TECNOLOGIES COSTED ;
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD) . ^
- • i
SS 0.166 |
SS 0.00121 |
SS 0.001 |
SS 0.1362 j
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
-Sv<
fK8'
SS
SS
• 1706 SS
• 1716 SS
• 1718
• 1740 SSU
• 1742 SS
• 1743 SS
• 1744 SS
• 1748 SS
• 1751
• 1764 SS
• 1773 SS
• 1788 SS
• 1793 SS
•| 1797
•| 1801 SS
•| 1805 SS
•| 1808
•| 1812
•| 1826 SS
•| 1832 SS
• "»33\i SS
• ,38
1
0.0295 |
0.0011 | AC
0.0571 |
1
1
1
0.0267 |
0.0147 | AC
0.03 |
0.0175 |
0.003 | AC
0.0036 |
'# 0.71 |
|t>*0.54 |
0.0316 | AC
0.0113 | AC
0.1635 |
0.6 1
0.0228 1 AC
1
1.238 |
0.024 |
0.00351
0.0011 AC
0.469 AC
0.022 |
0.004
0.0212 |
0.0009 AC
0.0029
0.087
0.02 AC
0.0024
0.058
'& 33
1
1
| CPU
1
| CP
1
1
1
0.0011 | CP
| CP
1
1
1
1
0.0143 | CP
| CP
| CP
0.003 | CP
| CP
1
| CP
0.0308 i CP
0.011 | CP
| CP
0.0222 | CP
1
| CP
| CP
| CP
0.0011 | CP
0.469 | CP
| CP
| CP
0.00088 | CP
| CP
1
1
0.02 | CP
| CP
1
1
1
0.3814 |
1
0.1362 |
1
1
0.0013 | CN
0.0736 |
i
1
,|
' i
I
1
0.0169 |
0.05 j
0.0179 |
0.003 |
0.0036 |
1
0.54 |
0.0364 I
0.013 |
0.1635 |
j
0.0263 |
I
0.388 |
0.024 |
0.00351 |
0.0013 |
0.355 |
0.0007 |
0.0153 I
i
0.0104 |
j
0.0029 |
i
0.02 |
0.054
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
0.0013
0.0233
0.0169
0.003
0.0036
0.54
0.0364
0.013
0.0263
0.00351
0.0013
BP 0.166
BP 0.00121
BP 0.007
| CH
I BP 0.202
| : CH
1
IBP
1
i
1
|
| BP
1 *** i
|
1 BP
|
| BP
| BP
1 BP
1
| BP
I BP
1 BP
| BP
| BP
i BP
j
| BP
| BP
| BP
1 '
I1
| BP
1 Bl?
i *"k
1 Bl?
0.0104 1 BP
1
• 1
1 BP
•1 **r
1
1
1
0.02 j BP
1 RP
1
I BP
1 |
0.0011
CH
| CH
0.00052 CH
0.0267 |
0.0143
j
0.0731
0.003 t
0.0036 |
1
0.54 |
0.0308 |
0.011 |
0.1635 |
0.6 |
0.0222 |
| CH
0.075 |
0.024 |
0.00351 |
0.0011 |
j
0.00104 | CH
0.0202 |
0.004 |
0.0423 |
0.00088 |
I
1
0.087 |
1 CH
| CH
0.02 |
0.004 |
0.054 |
| CH
0.00002
0.00017
0.00017
0.0001
0.00059
0.0003
0.0005
0; 00035
0.0002
0.00029
->-in.
-------
I PLANT PLANT BY PLANT PSES TECNOLOGIES COSTED
| NUMBERJ WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD) .
1843
1848
1853
1861
1876
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
'1924
1931
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
SS 0.7395
SS 0.0111
SS 0.233
SS 0.0075
SS 0.048
SS 1.107
SS 0.04
SS 0.003
SS 0.0102
SS 0.0359
SS 0.004
SS 0.014
.
\'988 L. K,<3
93^1 SS 0.0095
- J01 vLJJS^ 3i 0 . 008
2004
2007
2018
2022
2033
2037
2050
2057
2070
2075
2080
2084
2093
2108
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
2191
> 0214
'32
SS 0.006
SS 0.0038
SS 0.0021
SS 0.02405
SS 0.24
SS 0.0525
SS 0.024
SS 0.385
SS 0.035
SS 0.0111
SS 0.0116
SS 1.2
SS 0.015
SS 0.269
AC 0.0108
AC 0.0073
AC 0.0262
AC 0.0037
AC 0.16
AC 0.24
AC 0.0108
CPU 0.00052
CP 0.7395
CP 0.0217
CP 0.0127
CP 0.0086
CP 0.048
CP 1.0372
CP 0.0044
CP 0.0131
CP 0.0051
CP 0.0044
CP 0.16
CP 0.0022
CP 0.24
CP 0.01984
CP 0.036
CP 0.125
CP 0.035
CP 0.155
CP 0.0127
CP 0.0116
CP 0.014
CN 0.00052
CN 0.7395
CN 0.0217
CN 0.0127
CN 0.0086
CN 0.0044
CN 0.24
,
•
CN 0.0127
CN 0.015
CN 0.0693
BP 0.7395
BP 0.0108
BP 0.2326
BP 0.0073
BP 0.048
BP 1.27
BP 0.0065
BP 0.0131
BP 0.0161
BP 0.0104
BP 0.009
BP 0.085
BP 0.0037
BP 0.16
BP 0.0089
BP 0.24
BP 0.048
BP 0.125
BP 0.035
BP 0.0108
BP 0.0116
BP 0.015
BP 0.002
BP 0.1
CH 0.0001
CH 0.00089
CH 0.0004
CH 0.00016
CH 0 . 0004
CH 0.00025
1
CH 0.00007
CH 0.00019
CH 0.0005
j
CH 0.0004 1
CH 0.00031 1
-------
•""""" PLANT BY PLANT
.
'. ' ...........
PSES TECNOLOGIES COSTED
Jgy WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES^
2241 SS 0.35463
2243 SS 0.282
2250 SS 0.0013
2253
2259 SS 0.005
2261 SS 0.0648
2262
2288 SS 0.00179
2293 SS 0.0065
2300 SS 0.349
2311 SS 0.00498
2318 SS 0.0023
2341 SS 0.23
2346
2348
2350 SS 0.0056
2359 SS 0.0006
2402
'426
| CP
AC 0.282 | CP
| CP
AC 0.005 | CP
AC 0.0648 | CP
1
1
0.355 |
0.282 | CN
0.0013 |
j
0.005 |
0.0648 |
i
1
i
| CP 0.349 1
1 CP 0.00743 j
I CP 0.0023 |
| CP 0.149 |
| CP 1.0865 |
AC 0.0156 | CP 0.0156 |
AC 0.0056 | CP 0.0056 |
il
i
| CP
1
,2 *»24 *2- AC 0.0208 |
tfi \~ Z * J '+ 1 CP
2442 SS "o. 00084 AC 0.00084 | CP
2459 SS 0.008 1 CP
2462 SS 0.065 1 CP
2465 SS 0.0108 AC 0.0106 CP
2469 SS 0.0009 CP
2485 SS 0.553 1 CP
1 2487 SS 0.0492 AC 0.0492 | CP
2495 SS 0.15 CP
I 2498 SS 0.0036 CP
1 2501 SS 0.00608 CF
1 2507 __
1 2517 SS 0.0196 CP
1 2521 __
1 2524 SS 0.0018 ' cp
1 2539 SS 0.0251 AC 0.0477 CP
1 2548 SS 0.0294 AC 0.0286 CP
1 2565 SS 0.155 AC 0.155 CP
I 2571
1 2578
I 2581
I 2609 ' CP
ll 2634 AC 0.012
1 -.35 SSU 0.71 CP
i.
j
0.382 |
1
1
1.656 |
0.00084 |
0.008 |
0.065 |
0.0125 | CN
0.0014 |
0.243 |
0.0492 |
0.042 |
0.0053 |
0.00796 |
j
0.0293 |
j
0.0018 |
0.0326 1
0.0338 | CN
0.155 |
1
0.03189 |
1
0.075 |
(MGD) .
1 BP
0.282 | BP
) BP
j
1 BP
| BP
I BP
1 ,
BP
1 i
1 BP
| BP
1 BP
1 BP
1 i
| BP
| BP
1 BP
1
1
1 i
1
I
|
| BP
| BP
1
0.0125 | BP
1 BP
| BP
| BP
| BP
| BP
1 BP
I
| BP
I
| BE
| BP
0.0338 | BP
| B?
i
1
i
i
i ;
1 !
1 B:P
,.,!. «••••-•-•••••-•••••
0,3984
0.282
0.0055
CH 0.0005
0.005
0.0648
CH 0.0001
0.0018 CH 0.00025
0.00526
0.286
0.0109
0.0094
0.4547
0.0156
0.0056
0.0006
0.00084
0.008
0.0106
0.0021
0.553
0.0492
0.1201
0.0078
0.00795
0.0429
0.0073
0.0477
0.0286
0.155
0.012
0.71
CH 0.00008
CH 0.00002
CH 0.00032
CH 0.0005
CH 0.00001
CH 0.0002
l.l.
-------
1 PLANT PLANT BY PLANT PSES TECNOLOGIES COSTED
{NUMBER! WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MOD).
1 2636
I 2641
I 2642
| mn W™T«*
| 2646
1 2647
| 2666
I 2677
j 2679
1 2685
| 2699
| 2714
| 2736
| 2741
| 2748
| 2756
| 2776
| 2779
| 2793
| 2794
I '796
• / ?o
SS 0.00503
SS 0.0564
SS 0.098
SS 0.001
SS 0.0513
SS 0.143
SS 0.0007
SS 0.133
SS 0.0298
SS 0.0983
SS 0.529
SS 0.00551
SS 0.09766
SS 0.085
•»>r»/
.1 n ! -- / *»
, Jlu_f
| 2814
| 4001
| 4003
| 4006
| 4007
| 4008
j 4009
1 4014
! 4023
1 4024
| 4026
| 4027
I 4032
| 4042
| 4043
j 4044
4046
I
| 4047
j 4048
| 4050
| 4052
1 4057
•)64
"• —
\-2-ri"
SS 0.01183
SS 0.064
SS 0.0079
SS 0.06
SS 0.03
SSU 0.00065
SS 1.177
SS 0.0271
SS 0.0412
SS 0.0012
SS 0.1031
SSU 0.009
SS 0.0013
SS 0.00237
- VOL «y
AC 0.0499
AC 0.0035
AC 0.529
AC 0.00551
AC 0.62
AC 0.01183
AC 0.0077
AC 0.0264
AC 0.0012
AC 0.1031
CP 0.0016
CP 0.002
CP 0.059
CP 0.0645
CP 0.0007
CP 0.0298
CP 0.529
CP 0.00551
CP 0.01183
CP 0.064
CP 0.0091
CP 0.03
CP 0.00065
CP 0.0006
CP 0.0312
CP 0.0412
CP 0.0012
CP 0.0504
CP 0.1031
CP 0.009
CP 0.0019
CP 0.00354
CN 0.059
CN 0.529
CN 0.00551
CN 0.0091
CN 0.03
CN 0.0312
CN 0.0412
CN 0.0012
CN 0.1031
CN 0.009
1
BP 0.056 1
1
| CH a. 000064
BP 0.098 |
I
BP 0.004 |
BP 0.0499 I
I
1
I
BP 0.0007 |
BP 0.133 |
BP 0.0298 I
BP 0.1417 |
BP 0.529 |
BP 0.00551 |
BP 0.043 1
»*-*«' i
BP 0.151 1
*
|
| CH 0.00049
| CH 0.0002
BP 0.01183 |
BP 0.064 |
BP 0.0077 |
BP 0 06 1
•^« w • w 1 1
BP 0.03 1
1 1
| CH 0.0002
BP 0.00065 |
BP 0.0035 I
II
BP 0.0009 | CH 0.0004
BP 0.0264 |
BP 0.0412 |
BP 0.0012 |
| 1
BP 0.1031 | 1
| CH 0.0001 1
BP 0.009 | 1
| CH 0.000054 1
BP 0.0028 | 1
| CH 0.0003 1
BP 0.00519 | 1
| CH 0.00005 1
-------
PLANT |
NUMBER!
4066 |
4070 I SS 0.00083
4072 I SS 0.0034
"PLANT"BY"PLANT PSESTECNOLOGIES COSTED
WITH ASSOCIATED FLOWRATES (MGD).
AC 0.0033
CP
CP
0.00084
0.0039
CH 0.00021
j CN 0.0039 |
BP
BP
0.00345
0.0033
NOTES:
CP - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
CPU - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
SS - STEAM STRIPPING
SSU - STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
AC - ACTIVATED CARBON
CN - CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
BP - BIOLOGICAL PACKAGE
CH - CONTRACT HAULING
-------
Name and Description of Replaced Variables in Data File NCOSTS.SSD
PLANT
BATCCV2
BATCCVX
BATOMV2
BATOMVX
BATLV2
BATLVX
BATSV2C
BATSVXC
BATSV2O
BATSVXO
BATMV2
BATMYX
BATHV2
BATHVX
PSESCCV2
PSESCCVX
PSESOMV2
PSESOMVX
PSESLV2
PSESLVX
PSESSV2C
PSESSVXC
PSESSV20
PSESSVXO
PSESMV2
PSESMVX
PSESHV2
PSESHVX
Plant identification number
BAT Capital cost - Option 1 (August 1991)
Replacement BAT Capital cost • Option 1 (January 1992)
BAT O&M cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
Replacement BAT O&M cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
BAT Land cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
BAT Land cast • Option 1 (January 1992)
BAT sludge capital cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
BAT sludge capital cost - Option 1 (January 1992)
BAT sludge O&M cost •• Option 1 (August 1991)
BAT sludge O&M cost * Option 1 (January 1992)
BAT monitoring cost - Option 1 (August 1991)
BAT monitoring cost • Option 1 (January 1992)
BAT hauling cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
BAT hauling cost - Option 1 (January 1992)
PSES Capital cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
PSES Capital cost - Option 2 (January 1992)
PSES O&M cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
PSES O&M cost - Option 2 (January 1992)
PSES Land cost - Option 1 (August 1991)
PSES Land cost - Option 2 (January 1992)
PSES sludge capital cost - Option 1 (August 1991)
PSES sludge capital cost - Option 2 (January 1992)
PSES sludge O&M cost - Option 1 (August 1991)
PSES sludge O&M cost - Option 2 (January 1992)
PSES monitoring cost - Option 1 (August 1991)
PSES monitoring cost • Option 2 (January 1992)
PSES hauling cost • Option 1 (August 1991)
PSES hauling cost - Option 2 (January 1992)
The "VX" suffix variables replace "V2" suffix variables for control Option 1 presented in the August
1991 Re-evaluation of the Economic Impact Analysis of OCPSF Effluent Limitations Guidelines.
Plants with cost changes for any cost element are presented on the attached printout.
-------
5
w
eeooeoo ......... booooeoooo
• » K» K*K1 f> • » *> •
»wlCl/MAir*^f>»^»^ /
e 00000000000000050000000000
e
fM
in m
III
-------
<>-X> X
o
«
ui
O
N
IM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooeoooooooooooooooooooo
NW OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooeooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooo
rsi
(X
w •.muiwoox
o
o
•.MUIMXXNJ oooooooooooeeooooooooeeooo
Kt
^ O •••*•* O i«- 1*
*.mtUMUU>
-------
X OOOOOOOOO
O » «-«M »"
« (li ft IM m »
O
M
o
o>
,<^o«>x ssssso-s*0,
,-M^QMMAi-it^
Ul
o
M
e
».«lU M •»»<•»
A.WIHMXXV OOOOOOOOO
k.Wtil«B>
-------
------- |